5. Case Studies

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

Users assessed their experience with the tools using a standardized approach. A scoring scheme with ten criteria was developed and answers were 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 was requested explaining the score. The ten criteria were:

  1. User-friendliness
  2. Meets evaluation needs/requirements
  3. Efficiency
  4. Overall appearance
  5. Generation of actionable evaluation outputs
  6. Allows evaluation of OH-aspects
  7. Workability in terms of required data (1: very complex, 4: simple)
  8. Workability in terms of required people to include (1: many, 4: few)
  9. Workability in terms of analysis to be done (1: difficult, 4: simple)
  10. Time taken for application of tool (1: > 2 months, , 2: 1-2 months, 3: 1 week – 1 month,  4: < 1 week).

In addition, users answered four questions using a SWOT-like approach: 1) things that I liked or that it covers well, 2) things that I struggled with, 3) things people should be aware of when using this tool, and 4) things that this tool is not covering or not good at covering.

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

Have you used one of these evaluation tools? We need your input!

Please use this template to fill a report of your own experience with the evaluation tools. Reports can be shared with the network here.

As a next step, we intend to conduct a meta-analysis of users experiences with the tools in order to better understand when and how these tools are the most appropriate. For more information, please contact Cécile Aenishaenslin.