Management and collaboration |
Common understanding of long-term nature of AIM process Cooperation with academic institution Enthusiasm from partners Local partnerships Partner's network Partners organised and respected Routine monitoring and evaluation from outset
|
Cooperation problems with existing partners Failure by partners to meet deadlines Internal organisational changes
Poor internal understanding of implementation Problems establishing partnerships Lack of clarity regarding partner roles Resistance among partners to comply with the central scheme Lack of monitoring
|
Resources | Availability of funding
Fundraising support from local organisations Funds allocated to media campaign Staff training as part of scheme set-up In kind support from professionals Production and distribution of supporting educational materials
| Lack of funding
|
Leadership |
Good internal leadership of consortium: central administration, support and information Stability of key figures and personnel Interministerial cooperation Committed champions National/top–down initiative
|
|
Nature of the intervention |
Robust intervention Pilot phase with good results Cofinancing/cobenefits for partners Links to other projects Existing intervention with own resources (protocol/educational material) No-charge nature of intervention (eg, free equipment and fitting) Action taken from beginning to properly address target population Strong research base and reliable data Compliance with intervention easy and not too expensive Legal clarity
|
Difficulties encountered when adapting intervention to setting Large and complex interventions Efficacy of recommended items questionable Voluntary nature of participation (eg, voluntary standards) Misunderstanding/lack of resources among enforcers Confusion among consumers
|
Political, social and cultural environment |
|
Change in political climate Lack of safety culture among population Circumstances relating to armed conflict
|
Visibility |
| |
Nature of the injury problem | |
|