Patient and public engagement Evaluation Toolkit

Health Research

Kroutil Checklist

Type : checklist

Assessment Question mark icon

  • Scientific Rigour
  • Patient and Public Perspective
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Usability

Objective

To review and score project plans to assess planners’ intentions to elicit community participation along five dimensions: WHO is to participate, in WHAT activities, and through which process or HOW, given the PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS, and the conditions in the TASK ENVIRONMENT.

Reference

Kroutil, Larry A., and Eugenia Eng. “Conceptualizing and assessing potential for community participation: A planning method.” Health Education Research 4.3 (1989): 305-319.

 

* The tool is not available in a usable format

Assessment Question mark icon

  • Scientific Rigour
  • Patient and Public Perspective
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Usability

Assessment Grid

We provide a five-point rating for each of the following four criteria:
  • Scientific Rigour: Was the development of the evaluation tool scientifically rigorous and based on existing evidence on patient and public engagement?
  • Patient and Public Perspective: Does the evaluation tool take into account the views of patients and the public (both in its development and use)?
  • Comprehensiveness: Is the tool comprehensive in evaluating the context, process, outcomes and impacts of patient and public engagement?
  • Usability: Is the evaluation tool easy to use?
Each criterion has 5 question-items. We gave 1 point per item if the answer to the question was YES, 0 points if the answer was NO or CANNOT ANSWER.
  • Is the evaluation tool based on a comprehensive literature review on patient and public engagement research?
  • Is the evaluation tool based on the experience/expertise of key stakeholders?
  • Is the evaluation tool based on a conceptual/theoretical framework of patient and public engagement?
  • Was the evaluation tool tested for validity (i.e., the tool evaluates what it is purported to evaluate)?
  • Was the evaluation tool tested for reliability (i.e., the tool produces stable and consistent results)?
  • Were patients and/or the public involved in the development of the evaluation tool?
  • Is the tool designed to be completed by patients and/or members of the public (self-administered)?
  • Does the tool explicitly state that the evaluation results must be reported back to patients and the public?
  • Was the tool specifically designed to evaluate patient and public engagement activities?
  • Does the tool capture the influence of patients and the public? (e.g., on the engagement process, on the final decisions, etc.)
  • Does the tool document the context of engagement?
  • Does the tool document the process of engagement?
  • Does the tool document the outcome/impact of engagement?
  • Does the tool monitor the engagement process at multiple moments?
  • Does the tool consist of a set of open and closed questions?
  • Is the purpose of the evaluation tool stated?
  • Is the evaluation tool freely available?
  • Is the evaluation tool available in an applicable format?
  • Is the evaluation tool easy to read and understand?
  • Is the tool accompanied by instructions for use?
Logo of the CEPPP (pied de page)
Shares