Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 21;28(4):193–200. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002642

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Raters' judgements on appropriateness, acceptability, practicability and precision of the CLinical, Economic and Organisational (CLEO) tool with mean (SD) scores on the 7-point Likert scale (completely disagree=1, disagree=2, more or less disagree=3, undecided=4, more or less agree=5, agree=6, completely agree=7). Q01, the CLEO includes all dimensions needed to evaluate a PI; Q02, the CLEO is an appropriate instrument for evaluating Pis; Q03, I did not have issues to evaluate the PIs with the CLEO; Q04, I could imagine to use CLEO in my work in the future; Q05, in general I am satisfied with the CLEO; Q06, there are enough evaluation levels in the dimension ‘Clinical Impact’; Q07, there are enough evaluation levels in the dimension ‘Economic Impact’; Q08, there are enough evaluation levels in the dimension ‘Organisational Impact’; Q09, the levels in the dimension ‘Clinical Impact’ are well defined; Q10, the levels in the dimension ‘Economic Impact’ are well defined; Q11, the levels in the dimension ‘Organisational Impact’ are well defined; Q12, the different levels in the dimension ‘Clinical impact’ are clearly separated; Q13, the different levels in the dimension ‘Economic impact’ are clearly separated; Q14, the different levels in the dimension ‘Organisational impact’ are clearly separated; Q15, the CLEO is easy to use; Q16, the training with case examples is sufficient to use the CLEO; Q17, the time expenses for an evaluation of a PI with the CLEO are reasonable.