Variable/Definition | High | Medium | Low | Negative |
---|---|---|---|---|
Community voice: Community part of defining problem and identifying solutions. Community is group or groups that the intervention is focussed on. | Community involved in defining the problem and developing the solution | Community involved in either defining the problem or developing the solution. OR multiple communities involved but only one community involved in problem definition and solution development. | Community only informed or gives implicit approval but has no direct involvement in the definition of problem or solution development. | Intervention implemented in the face of significant community opposition |
Reflexivity: Questioning the unstated and taken-for-granted power and privilege from which outsiders initiate contact with the community. | The implementation team explicitly states their reflexivity and identifies adjustments to the intervention as a result. | The implementation team identifies efforts to engage in reflexivity or states they were aware of it; adjustments to the intervention are unclear. | No evidence that the team was reflexive about its processes or, no changes made in response to team learning’s. | Victim blaming, unintended bias or overt racism in intervention design, implementation or evaluation. |
Structural transformation and resources: Changing the nature of the system to better fit the community needs. | Significant structural transformation and resources which are sustainable over time. | Structural transformation and resources that are minimal or sustainable over the short term only. | Structural transformation and resources that are minimal and sustainable over the short term only. | Less resources available or lower quality resources as a result of the intervention compared with no intervention. |
Community Engagement: The level of involvement, impact, trust and communication with community members | Strong community or bi-direction leadership. Decision making and communication is shared and a strong partnership is identified throughout the intervention process. | Communication is bidirectional and the community participates with the intervention team on the issues. Communication is two-way and there is cooperation to implement the intervention with a partnership becoming apparent. | Intervention is placed in the community with consultation. Communication primarily flows from intervention team to communition and the intervention team has ultimate control over the intervention and relavent communication. | N/A |
Integrated Knowledge Translation: How the intervention is implemented with regard to the degree that the knowledge users are equal partners with the intervention team | There is a process of mutual or bi-directional learning established so that information is tailored to knowledge users needs. | Medium level support for knowledge user by intervention team for implementing the intervention. Intervention is not tailored to the knowledge user. | Minimal or no support for implementing intervention or outsiders implement the intervention for the knowledge users. | Knowledge users have major concerns about the intervention which they communicate to the intervention team, but they are not able to discuss their concerns with the intervention team. |
System perspectives: The degree to which the team demonstrate recognition that there are multiple ways of viewing issues and solutions depending on worldviews, values and interests. | Intervention includes all three of the following: 1) multiple causes, 2) broad focus/multiple solutions; and 3) multiple perspectives, worldviews, and values of multiple actors in the system. | Intervention includes only on 2 of the 3 factors in high category. | Intervention includes 1 or none of the three factors in high category. | Intervention has a negative impact on other areas that will result in increasing the problem and issue would have been apparent had team explored multiple perspectives. |
System relationships: Prioritises an understanding of relationships between variables/factors rather than taking a laundry list approach | Demonstrates strong understanding of the complex relationships between variables including feedback loops, time delays and multi-level effects. | Demonstrates moderate understanding of the complex relationships between variables including feedback loops, time delays and multi-level effects. | Limited or weak understanding of the complex relationships between variables including feedback loops, time delays and multi-level effects. | N/A |
System levels: Takes different levels of analysis into account and provides clear rationale for the choices of levels. | The intervention targets change at the macro, meso and micro levels, and provides sufficient rationale and context for each level. | The intervention targets change at the three levels but does not provide rationale and context for each level. Or, the intervention targets two levels and provides rationale and context. | The intervention targets change at two levels or less without providing rationale and context. | N/A |