Table 1 Selection criteria for the first consultation round
Indicator criteria | Description |
|---|---|
The indicator is relevant | The indicator is clearly relevant to policy evaluation of lifestyle/NCDs prevention and/or is a plausible proxy for the underlying measure. |
The indicator is actionable | The indicator provides information that can lead to action for change: inform and influence policies. It is actionable in regard to the PEN case studies. |
The indicator is meaningful and useable | The information must be easy to understand, relevant for governments plans and priorities and useful for public health action (e.g. targets population groups that are likely more affected) |
The indicator is accurate | Scientific soundness: The scientific evidence supporting a link between the performance of an indicator and lifestyle change/NCDs prevention is strong. |
Validity: The indicator appears reasonable as a measure of what it is intended to measure (face validity), and the components of the indicator make sense (construct validity). | |
Reliability: The same results can be obtained if measurements are repeated under identical conditions. | |
The indicator is feasible/efficient | Sufficient good quality data are already available and accessible, or data collection can be put in place at relatively low costs. |
The indicator is ongoing | Data can be regularly collected and compared over time. |
The indicator is internationally comparable | The indicator is clearly relevant to different cultural settings and regions in Europe and not entirely national context bound. The information can be harmonised across all European Union member states. |
The indicator is age- independent | The indicator is applicable to all age groups. |