Table 3.

Result of the scoring of all six tools with respect to the 11 functional aspects, shown as a heat map (the number of times the tool was assessed is given in the bracket). The scoring scale used was where 1 (red) = not covered, 2 = not well covered (orange), 3 = more or less covered (yellow), 4 = well covered (green).

	ISSEP (2)	ECoSur (2)	ATLASS (1)	PMP–AMR (4)	NEOH (5)	SURVTOOLS (2)
User friendliness	2	3	4	4	2	4
Meets evaluation needs/requirements	3	4	2	3	4	3
Efficiency	2	4	4	4	3	3
Use of a step-wise approach to the evaluation*	3	2	4	4	3	2
Overall appearance**	2	3	4	4	2	4
Generation of actionable evaluation outputs	2	4	4	4	3	2
Allows evaluation of one health aspects	3	3	4	2	4	2
Workability in terms of required data (1: very complex and 4: simple)	2	3	1	4	2	3
Workability in terms of people to include (1: many and 4: few)	2	3	4	3	2	4
Workability in terms of analysis to be done (1: difficult and 4: simple)	2	4	4	4	3	3
Time taken for application of tool: time (1: >2 months, 2: 1–2 months, 3: 1 week−1 month, and 4: <1 week)	2	3	4	3	2	3
Crude summary score	25	36	39	39	30	33

^*Only scored by 11 of the 20 of the assessors.

^**Only scored by one of the two assessors of ISSEP. The scoring scale used was as follows: 1 = not covered (red), 2 = not well-covered (orange), 3 = more or less covered (yellow), and 4 = well-covered (green).