5. Case Studies

This section presents the experiences of users with selected evaluation tools.

The users assessed their experience with the tools using a standardized methodology, which can be found
here: CoEvalAMR evaluation matrix. The updated version consists of a brief introduction to the case study and to the tool separately. Moreover, 12 functional aspects and nine content themes are scored. Results are illustrated using radar diagrams. The answers are scored from 1-4; where 1 = not satisfactory at all, 2 = need major improvements, 3 = almost perfect but minor improvements are needed, 4 = completely satisfactory. With each numeric score (1-4) a comment is requested explaining the score.

The 12 functional aspects to score are:

  1. User-friendliness related to wording, guidance and layout of the tool or framework
  2. Analysis and interpretation of evaluation data
  3. Analysis and interpretation of evaluation data
  4. Amount and complexity of data required, where complexity is defined as different kinds of data from multiple sources in different formats or as primary data collection required
  5. Ability to address the stated evaluation objectives
  6. Evaluation of One Health (OH) aspects (collaboration across sectors/disciplines, knowledge integration, added value of OH approach, etc.)
  7. Required level of knowledge of users regarding surveillance, epidemiology and evaluation
  8. Training to get acquainted with the tool
  9. Costs related to the access and use of the tool
  10. Number of people in the evaluation team
  11. Duration of the evaluation process
  12. Generation of actionable evaluation outputs

In addition, users are asked to answer four questions using a SWOT-like approach: 1) The strengths of this tool are, 2) The weaknesses of this tool are, 3) The added value(s) of using this tool is, and 4) This tool might be criticized because of.

Please note that these reports are subjective and do not constitute the endorsement of any tool.


Case study 3

Evaluating integrated surveillance of antimicrobial resistance: experiences from the use of four evaluation tools
Liza Rosenbaum Nielsen, Lis Alban, Johanne Ellis-Iversen, Marianne Sandberg.

Case study 4

Evaluating integrated surveillance of Belgium’s national action plan on antimicrobial resistance: experiences from the use of the NEOH and the FAO PMP-AMR evaluation tools.
Maria-Eleni Filippitzi, Ilias Chantziaras, Nicolas Antoine Moussieaux.

Case study 5

Implementation of the Classyfarm system in swine production in Piedmont region, Italy.
Laura Tomassone, Daniele de Meneghi.

Case study 6

AMR in E. coli from Broilers- as a part of NORM-VET.
Madelaine Norström.

Case study 7

Evaluating AMR monitoring in commensal E.coli from Dutch livestock (MARAN) with different evaluation tools: Survtool and NEOH.
Ayla Hesp, Ursula Bergwerff, Gerdien van Schaik.

Case study 8