WG4 OneHealth Tools RepositoryBEACON COST ACTION CA24106
Log in

About the WG4 OneHealth Tools Repository

Background

BEACON (Building Education and One Health with Adaptive Convergence and Open Networks) is a COST Action (CA24106) running over 48 months across five working groups. Working Group 4 is responsible for Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment. Its first deliverable (4a) is to create BEACON's Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (Months 1–12).

This portal implements the WG4 Mini-Protocol for building a structured repository and analytical classification framework of existing One Health tools, enabling tool selection, comparison, gap analysis and future evaluation design.

Operational Definition
A tool is any structured framework, instrument, protocol, toolkit, checklist, scorecard, method or template that supports One Health assessment, prioritisation, implementation review, monitoring, evaluation, impact assessment, systems mapping, or evidence generation.
Inclusion Criteria (all three must be met)
  1. Relevance – Explicitly designed for One Health, or clearly adaptable to human–animal–environment contexts.
  2. Structure – Structured enough to be applied or interpreted in practice.
  3. Accessibility – Publicly available or accessible on request; documented through use, piloting or publication.
Classification Framework (4 Layers)
🎯
Function

What the tool does: 12 purpose categories, method type, and participatory / indicator / Theory of Change flags.

🌐
One Health Coverage

Which sectors it addresses: human, animal, wildlife, environment, AMR, food, governance, education.

⚙️
Operational Feasibility

Who can use it: scale, burden (time, data, skills, facilitation, cost), and evidence of real-world use.

📊
Quality & Relevance

A structured appraisal: three independent 1–4 scores, never collapsed into one.

Rapid Appraisal Rubric (1–4 each, never collapse into one score)
Conceptual Relevance

1=Peripheral · 2=Adaptable · 3=Clearly relevant · 4=Explicitly designed for OH

Methodological Robustness

1=Weakly specified · 2=Partially specified · 3=Clear & replicable · 4=Clear + documented evidence

Operational Usability

1=Difficult/high-resource · 2=Needs substantial support · 3=Moderate support · 4=Practical & transferable

Suggested Workflow
  1. Agree on protocol, coding manual and seed set.
  2. Pilot 5–8 tools with two independent reviewers to calibrate interpretation.
  3. Expand the repository; reviewers cross-validate entries.
  4. Produce the first gap analysis.
Strategic Note
The repository should not be treated as a simple list. Its value comes from linking each tool to function, method, usability, evidence and gap mapping.