From: Health promotion and disease prevention registries in the EU: a cross country comparison
1. Assessment process | 1.1 Assessment method | 1.2 Assessment Criteria | 1.3 Classification and 1.4 Designation of most recommendable practice | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Europe | 1. Call for best practices 2. Submission of practices by countries 3. External evaluation using criteria Steering group | Point-grading-system | • Exclusion criteria (relevance, intervention characteristics, evidence and theory based, ethical aspects), • Core criteria (effectiveness and efficiency of the intervention, equity), • Qualifier (transferability, sustainability, participation, intersectoral collaboration) | Best practice | |
Finland | Open peer review: 1. Submission of the practice by the practice owner 2. The editorial team assesses applicability to the evaluation process 3. The author decribes the practice by filling the evaluation criteria 4. At least two peer-reviewers evaluate the practice and may ask for revision and additional information If the peer reviews differs widely, the editorial team may invite an additional peer reviewer. | Point-grading-system, including qualitative and quantitative criteria | Evaluation criteria: • Basic information of the practice and applicability to the evaluation process (for the acceptance to the evaluation process) • Description of the impact chain of the practice (e.g., background, aim, target group, experts and stakeholders, approach/methods, process evaluation and quality assurance, results and effectiveness, costs and cost effectiveness, risks, ethical considerations, management) | • Evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of practice (e.g. studies, reports, calculations) • Transferability and applicability of practice (e.g., availability of training material and training, regional transferability, implementation) • In addition, a list of outputs and publications related to the practice | Evidence-based practices: 5- level classification: 1 = poor practice 2 = satisfactory practice 3 = good practice 4 = very good practice 5 = excellent |
Germany | 1. Recommendation (e.g., by the Equity in Health coordination office) 2. Interview with practice owner and description by the staff of BZgA 3. Assessment of practice by two experts of advisory working group of cooperation office 4. After several feedback loops and positive assessment the practice is published in the practice database | Self-reflection, in-depth-interview with practice-owner | Good Practice Criteria recommended for use: • Concept and project planning, • Target group orientation • Settings approach • Integrating intermediaries • Sustainability • Low-threshold methodology, | • Participation • Empowerment • Integrated action/networking • Quality management • Documentation and evaluation • Capturing cost effectiveness | Good practice |
Italy | 1. Submission by the practice owner 2. Two independent reviewers (one expert in health promotion methodology, one expert in topic or setting) evaluates and may ask for revision and additional information to the documents (two or more revisional loops). 3. After the required addictions/changes the practice is published and described in its strengths and limitations and with suggestions for the transferability. | Point-grading-system | Principle and values: • Equity • Empowerment • Participation Planning and evaluation: • Context analysis • Setting • Theories and models • Evidence and good practices | Objectives: • Description of actions/interventions • Resources, timelines, and constraints • Process evaluation • Impact and outcome evaluation Sustainability and transferability: • Partnerships and alliances • Sustainability • Transferability • Communication | Transferable good practice |
The Netherlands | 1. Submission by the practice owner 2. Advice on draft description by external advisors to improve quality of submission (2–3 loops) 3. Assessment of the programme by three members of the committee (representatives of practice and science) during a meeting 4. Intervention and the recognition level are presented in the portal with evidence level | Qualitative assessment (criteria provide guidance for evaluator to make suggestions for improvement) | Description of the intervention: • Objectives • Target group • Involvement of target group • Method/approach • design and content Theoretical underpinning: • Problem analysis • Factors addressing the problem • Justification of the method (change theory and empirical evidence) and summary of core elements | Feasibility: • Training and competencies professionals • Material for implementation • Recruitment and evaluation of the intervention • Quality assurance • Prerequisites for implementation • Resources Evaluation: • Process evaluation and effect evaluation: number of studies, methods and results | Recognized interventions: five-level-classification: 1. Well-described 2. Theoretically sound 3. First indications for effectiveness 4. Good indications for effectiveness 5. Strong indications for effectiveness |
Poland | Planned: The review is done by 3 to 5 evaluators (working group and support from advisory group) | Not introduced so far | Planned: development of criteria to assess submitted interventions based on EU-Commission criteria and those applied in other national programme registries | Good practice | |
Slovenia | 1. Submission to the database by the practice owner (e.g., questionnaire and all relevant documentation) 2. Assessment of the intervention by three reviewers (representatives of practice and science) 3. First panel meeting of reviewers to prepare additional questions and requests for the intervention owners 4. Peer-reviewers meet with the owners of the intervention, requesting additional information and revisions, as needed 5. 3–4 panel meetings of reviewers to agree upon the final decision regarding the assessment score and to prepare the final document with proposals for possible improvements | Point-grading-system | Assessment criteria adapted from the EU Best Practice Portal and piloted in 2022. Exclusion criteria • Relevance of the intervention regarding the objectives of public health policies and strategies • Intervention characteristics and structure • Evidence and theory based • Ethical aspects | Core criteria • Effectiveness and Efficiency of the intervention • Equity (considering the dimension of equality and equity and efforts to reduce health inequalities) • Participation of target groups and stakeholders • Intersectoral collaboration Additional criteria • Transferability • Sustainability | Good practice |