Table 2. Comparison of the criteria used to assess acceptability with participatory approaches and with the OASIS flash tool.
| OASIS criteria | Participatory approaches criteria / Stakeholders | |
|---|---|---|
| Similar indicators | - Taking partners’ expectations related to the objective into account | - Acceptability of the objective / All |
| - Effective integration of laboratories in the surveillance system | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction of its own role / National reference laboratory | |
| - Simplicity of the notification procedure | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction of its own role / Private veterinarians—Hunters—Forest rangers | |
| - Simplicity of the data collection procedure | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction of its own role / Private veterinarians—Hunters—Forest rangers | |
| - Acceptability of the consequences of a suspicion or case for the source or collector of data | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction with the consequences of the information flow / Farmers—Private veterinarians—Hunters—Forest rangers | |
| - Feedback of the individual analyses results to field actors | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction with the relations / Farmers—Private veterinarians—Hunters—Forest rangers | |
| - Systematic feedback of the surveillance results to field actors (excluding news bulletin) | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction with the relations / Farmers—Private veterinarians—Hunters—Forest rangers | |
| Slightly different indicators | - Frequency of meetings of the central coordinating body | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction with the relations / PCU—National reference laboratory—FASFC—FPS |
| - Active role of intermediary units in the functioning of the system (validation, management, feedback) | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction of its own role / PCU—Forest rangers | |
| - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction of the relations / Farmers—Private veterinarians—FASFC—Hunters—Wildlife coordinator | ||
| - Adequacy of material and financial resources of intermediary units | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction of its own role / PCU—Forest rangers | |
| - Existence of coordination meetings at the intermediate level | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction of the relations / Farmers—Private veterinarians—Hunters | |
| - Adequacy of material and financial resources at the field level | - Acceptability of the operation of the surveillance system—Satisfaction of its own role / Private veterinarians—Hunters—Forest rangers | |
| Specific indicators | - Existence of an operational management structure (central unit) | - Trust given to the system / All |
| - Existence of an operational steering structure that is representative of the partners (steering committee) | - Trust given to other stakeholders involved in surveillance / All | |
| - Organization and operations of the system laid down in regulations, a charter, or a convention established between the partners | ||
| - Simplicity of the case or threat definition | ||
| - Adequacy of the data management system for the needs of the system (relational database, etc.) | ||
| - Initial training implemented for all field agents when joining the system | ||
| - Regular reports and scientific papers publications on the results of the surveillance |
PCU: Provincial Control Unit; FASFC: Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (headquarter); FPS: Federal Public Service health, food safety and environment