Working Group 4
Group Coordinators: Lis Alban / Lucie Collineau
WG4 aims to apply and assess selected evaluation methods to a series of country-based case studies.
As part of the Phase 1 of CoEvalAMR, a series of case studies for the assessment of evaluation tools for integrated surveillance of AMU and AMR has been undertaken (See Sandberg et al. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.620998). This work was based on an assessment framework developed by CoEvalAMR partners, where each tool was scored using (i) 11 pre-defined functional aspects (e.g., workability concerning the need for data, time, and people); (ii) a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)-like approach of user experiences (e.g., things that I liked or that the tool covered well); and (iii) eight predefined content themes related to scope (e.g., development purpose and collaboration). While the assessment framework proved helpful to direct future evaluators toward the most adequate tool for their specific evaluation purpose, framework users also suggested several areas for improvements. Hence, CoEvalAMR Phase 2 will aim to revise the initial assessment framework and apply it to additional/identical case studies.
In collaboration with WG2 (governance evaluation) and WG3 (impact evaluation), WG4 also aims to apply the new methodology developed for governance and impact evaluation in country case studies. Building on this experience, the revision of the assessment framework will also consider outputs from WG2 and WG3. Where and when relevant, the existing evaluation tools will be updated based upon experience obtained in CoEvalAMR phases 1 and 2. More generally, WG4 aims to build a community of evaluators involved in national case studies for the evaluation of integrated surveillance of AMU and AMR, hence facilitating the sharing of experiences, challenges and possible solutions.
Expected deliverable: a written paper summarizing the work completed in phases 1 and 2 of the CoEvalAMR Case studies WG, focusing on the identified updates of the assessment framework developed in Phase 1, as well as the common experiences related to evaluating governance and impact as developed in WG2 and WG3.