[en] Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the veterinary domain are widely implemented worldwide and can help to strengthen the capacities of Veterinary Services. Few analyses have been made of these initiatives. This study is aimed at developing an evaluation tool based on participatory approaches and focusing on the quality of PPP processes in the veterinary domain. The tool was divided into ten sections relevant to PPP process organisation and activities. The 44 evaluation criteria and six quality attributes (operationality, relevance, acceptability, inclusiveness, adaptability, and stability) were identified based on literature review and case-study application. The tool was adjusted during four regional PPP training workshops bringing together stakeholders from both public and private sectors. Finally, the tool was validated through an experts' elicitation process and applied in the field in Paraguay. The tool was developed in a non-normative perspective to help the partners adapt the PPP to their specific context, to maximize the opportunities and minimize the risks of such collaborations, and to formulate adapted recommendations to strengthen and improve the PPP collaborative process and thus the outcomes. In an ex-ante perspective, this tool would also help public and private actors to engage and develop a PPP process following the best possible practices. The aim of this tool is to help decision making in terms of PPP development and implementation in the veterinary domain to ensure the added value and relevance of such a collaborative approach in different countries worldwide.
Disciplines :
Veterinary medicine & animal health
Author, co-author :
Poupaud, Mariline ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals and Health (FARAH) ; UMR ASTRE, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Montpellier, France
Antoine-Moussiaux, Nicolas ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de gestion vétérinaire des Ressources Animales (DRA)
Dieuzy-Labaye, Isabelle; World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Paris, France
Peyre, Marisa; UMR ASTRE, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Montpellier, France
Language :
English
Title :
An evaluation tool to strengthen the collaborative process of the public-private partnership in the veterinary domain.
BMGF - Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation CIRAD - French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development
Funding text :
Funding: This study was carried out as part of a doctoral thesis funded by the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD) and the OIE Public Private Progress project which is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation under the grant number: OPP1159705.
World Organisation for Animal Health. Terrestrial Code Online Access—Chapter 3.4. Veterinary legislation—Article 3.4.2. In: OIE—World Organisation for Animal Health—Codes and Manual [Internet]. 2019 [cited 17 May 2021]. https://www.oie.int/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-codeonline-access/
World Organisation for Animal Health. The OIE PPP Handbook: guidelines for public-private partnerships in the veterinary domain. 2019 [cited 11 Mar 2020]. https://www.oie.int/publicprivatepartnerships/ppp/en/Handbook_en.html
World Organisation for Animal Health. Terrestrial Code Online Access—Glossary. In: OIE—World Organisation for Animal Health—Codes and Manual [Internet]. 2019 [cited 17 May 2021]. https://www.oie.int/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/
World Organisation for Animal Health. OIE tool for the evaluation of performance of Veterinary Services. Paris, France: World Organisation for Animal Health; 2019. Report No.: Seventh Edition. https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Support_to_OIE_Members/docs/pdf/2019_PVS_Tool_FINAL.pdf
Galière M, Peyre M, Muñoz F, Poupaud M, Dehove A, Roger F, et al. Typological analysis of public-private partnerships in the veterinary domain. Clegg SR, editor. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14: e0224079. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224079 PMID: 31671123
Ahuja V. The economic rationale of public and private sector roles in the provision of animal health services. Rev Sci Tech OIE. 2004; 23: 33–45. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.23.1.1464 PMID: 15200085
Poupaud M, Galière M, Dieuzy-Labaye I, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Peyre M. Toward a framework for the evaluation of public-private partnerships in the veterinary domain: a scoping review. Publ. Under publication.
Allen W. Planning, monitoring and evaluation—closing the loop. In: Learning for sustainability [Internet]. 2019 [cited 22 Apr 2020]. https://learningforsustainability.net/plan-monitor-evaluate/
Rieker P. Partnership evaluation: guidebook and resources. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO); 2011 p. 111. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/PartnershipEvaluation.pdf
National Academies of Sciences. The role of public-private partnerships in health systems strengthening: workshop summary. Washington, DC; 2016. p. 126. https://doi.org/10.17226/21861
Hendrikx P, Gay E, Chazel M, Moutou F, Danan C, Richomme C, et al. OASIS: an assessment tool of epidemiological surveillance systems in animal health and food safety. Epidemiol Infect. 2011; 139: 1486–1496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268811000161 PMID: 21385516
Bordier M, Delavenne C, Nguyen DTT, Goutard FL, Hendrikx P. One Health surveillance: a matrix to evaluate multisectoral collaboration. Front Vet Sci. 2019; 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00109 PMID: 31106210
Champagne F, Contandriopoulos A-P, Brousselle A, Hartz Z, Denis J-L. L’évaluation dans la santé: concept et méthode. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Montréal; 2011. pp. 35–56. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10442484?ppg=34
Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Administration Review. 2015; 75: 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432
Calba C, Goutard FL, Vanholme L, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Hendrikx P, Saegerman C. The added-value of using participatory approaches to assess the acceptability of surveillance systems: the case of bovine tuberculosis in Belgium. Sreevatsan S, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016; 11: e0159041. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159041 PMID: 27462705
Calba C, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Charrier F, Hendrikx P, Saegerman C, Peyre M, et al. Applying participatory approaches in the evaluation of surveillance systems: a pilot study on African swine fever surveillance in Corsica. Prev Vet Med. 2015; 122: 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.10.001 PMID: 26489602
Peyre M, Hoinville L, Njoroge J, Cameron A, Traon D, Goutard F, et al. The RISKSUR EVA tool (Survtool): a tool for the integrated evaluation of animal health surveillance systems. Prev Vet Med. 2019; 173: 104777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104777 PMID: 31731037
World Organisation for Animal Health. Public-private partnerships in the veterinary domain. In: OIE—World Organisation for Animal Health [Internet]. 2016 [cited 18 May 2021]. https://www.oie.int/en/whatwe-offer/improving-veterinary-services/pvs-pathway/targeted-support/public-private-partnerships-inveterinary-services/
Poupaud M, N’Bocho Guessan B, Dieuzy-Labaye I, Peyre M. Engaging the actors to ensure impacts of public–private partnerships. In: OIE Bulletin [Internet]. 2019 [cited 17 Apr 2020]. https://oiebulletin.com/?panorama=03-6-2019-3-impact-evaluation
Calba C, Goutard FL, Hoinville L, Hendrikx P, Lindberg A, Saegerman C, et al. Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1791-5 PMID: 25928645
Allen W, Ogilvie S, Blackie H, Smith D, Sam S, Doherty J, et al. Bridging disciplines, knowledge systems and cultures in pest management. Environ Manage. 2014; 53: 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00267-013-0180-z PMID: 24122099
Peyre M, Hendrikx P, Thanh HPT, Huu DD, Goutard F, Desvaux S, et al. Evaluation of surveillance systems in animal health: the need to adapt the tools to the contexts of developing countries, results from a regional workshop in South East Asia. In: Epidemiologie et santé animale [Internet]. 2011. https://core.ac.uk/display/46677920
Oakden J. Evaluation Rubrics: how to ensure transparent and clear assessment that respects diverse lines of evidence. BetteEvaluation; 2013 p. 20. https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Evaluation%20rubrics.pdf
Allen W, Grant A, Earl L, MacLellan R, Waipara N, Mark-Shadbolt M, et al. The use of rubrics to improve integration and engagement between biosecurity agencies and their key partners and stakeholders: a surveillance example. In: Urquhart J, Marzano M, Potter C, editors. The Human Dimensions of Forest and Tree Health. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-76956-1_11
Reddy YM, Andrade H. A review of rubric use in higher education. Assess Eval High Educ. 2010; 35: 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862859
Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences journal. The Qualitative Report. College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences journal. Florida; 2015. pp. 1408–1416. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.nova.edu/dist/a/4/files/2015/09/fusch1.pdf
Saadi A, Sahibi H, Thys S, Marcotty T, Filali H, Amarir F, et al. Stakeholder analysis to improve the national control program of cystic echinococcosis in Morocco. Prev Vet Med. 2021; 186: 105227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105227 PMID: 33340926
Schmeer K. Stakeholder analysis guidelines. Policy Toolkit Strength Health Sect Reform. 1999; 48. https://www.academia.edu/28157521/Stakeholder_Analysis_Guidelines
Cooke B. The social psychological limits of participation. Participation: the New Tyranny? London: Zed Books; 2001. pp. 102–121.
Mansuri G. Community-based and driven development: a critical review. World Bank Res Obs. 2004; 19: 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkh012
Koschmann MA, Kuhn TR, Pfarrer MD. A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Acad Manage Rev. 2012; 37: 332–354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0314
Babiak K, Thibault L. Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2009; 38: 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008316054
Barr DA. A research protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of public–private partnerships as a means to improve health and welfare systems worldwide. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97: 19–25.
World Bank Institute. Public-private partnerships reference guide. In: World Bank Group [Internet]. 2017 [cited 11 Mar 2021]. https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/library/ppp-referenceguide-3-0
Neven D. Developing sustainable food value chains. Guiding principles. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2014. http://www.fao.org/3/I3953E/i3953e.pdf
Reinsberg B, Stubbs T, Kentikelenis A, King L. Bad governance: how privatization increases corruption in the developing world: How privatization increases corruption. Regul Gov. 2019.
Maatala N, Benabdellah M, Lebailly P. Les Partenariats Public-Privé: Fondement théorique et analyse économique. Rev Mar Sci Agron Vét. 2017; 192–199.
World Organisation for Animal Health. Veterinary Legislation Support. 2020 [cited 28 Apr 2020]. https://www.oie.int/en/solidarity/options-for-targeted-support/veterinary-legislation-support/
Douthwaite B, Kuby T, van de Fliert E, Schulz S. Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agric Syst. 2003; 78: 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0308-521X(03)00128-8
Barret D, Blundo Canto G, Dabat M-H, Devaux-Spatarakis A, Faure G, Hainzelin E, et al. Impress methodological guide to ex post impact of agricultural research in developing countries. Cirad; 2018. https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00006
