Gap Analysis

Based on 7 published tools.

3.4 Conceptual Relevance (avg) Range: 2–4

3.3 Methodological Robustness (avg) Range: 2–4

3.1 Operational Usability (avg) Range: 2–4

One Health Dimension Coverage

% of tools with Yes or Partial coverage per dimension.

Human Health 86% full / 100% total

Animal Health 86% full / 86% total

Wildlife 43% full / 71% total

Environment 29% full / 57% total

AMR GAP 14% full / 43% total

Food Systems GAP 14% full / 14% total

Governance 71% full / 86% total

Education GAP 14% full / 14% total

Community 57% full / 57% total

Full coverage Partial coverage

Purpose Distribution

Baseline assessment SPARSE 1

Capacity assessment SPARSE 1

Systems mapping SPARSE 1

Prioritisation SPARSE 1

Learning/adaptation SPARSE 1

Governance assessment SPARSE 1

Process evaluation SPARSE 1

Method Type

Mixed methods

4 (57%)

Quantitative

2 (29%)

Qualitative

1 (14%)

Operational Burden (% High)

Time

29%

Data

14%

Skills

29%

Facilitation

43%

Cost

Interpretive Gap Summary

AMR is a significant gap – only 43% of tools cover this dimension.
Food Systems is a significant gap – only 14% of tools cover this dimension.
Education is a significant gap – only 14% of tools cover this dimension.
Baseline assessment is sparsely represented with only 1 tool(s).
Capacity assessment is sparsely represented with only 1 tool(s).
Systems mapping is sparsely represented with only 1 tool(s).
Prioritisation is sparsely represented with only 1 tool(s).
Learning/adaptation is sparsely represented with only 1 tool(s).
Governance assessment is sparsely represented with only 1 tool(s).
Process evaluation is sparsely represented with only 1 tool(s).
Tools rated High burden on facilitation or skills may be unsuitable for low-resource settings without adaptation support.
All tools scoring below 3 on methodological robustness should be cross-validated by a second independent reviewer.