Table 5 Results of the evaluation questionnaire for participants of the IAR meetings
Evaluation questions | AIRPORTS (Mean a(SD)) | PORTS (Meana (SD)) | Airports vs. portsb |
|---|---|---|---|
1. The IAR made it possible to identify challenges and problems in the COVID-19 response in ports/on airports | 4.29 (.49) | 4.09 (.70) | p = .62 |
2. The IAR made it possible for participants to share experiences and solutions in the COVID-19 response in ports/on airports | 4.00 (.58) | 4.36 (.50) | p = .28 |
3. The IAR contributed to an improved cooperation amongst different public health partners and disciplines involved in the COVID-19 response in ports/on airports | 4.14 (.69) | 3.72 (.90) | p = .37 |
4. The IAR contributed to an improved multisectoral cooperation and coordination amongst involved parties in the COVID-19 response in ports/on airports | 4.00 (.58) | 3.63 (.81) | p = .39 |
5. During the IAR, there was room for participants to do suggestions how to improve the COVID-19 response in ports/on airports | 4.29 (.49) | 4.36 (.50) | p = .79 |
6. The presentation given on the method and process of the IAR meeting was clear and useful | 3.86 (.69) | 4.00 (.63) | p = .68 |
7. The introduction on the Dutch situation and timeline of important events presented were useful and efficient | 4.29 (.49) | 4.18 (.60) | p = .79 |
8. The first session, in which we discussed the implementation of different control measures in ports/on airports, went efficiently | 3.57 (.98) | 3.45 (.69) | p = .79 |
9. The second session, in which we discussed the cooperation in the COVID-19 control in ports/on airports, went efficiently | 4.00 (.58) | 3.91 (.54) | p = .79 |
10. The number of participants involved in the IAR meeting and its different sessions was adequate | 4.14 (.38) | 3.82 (.40) | p = .30 |
11. The participants involved in the IAR had the right profile to participate | 4.14 (.69) | 3.91 (.83) | p = .65 |
12. The methods used during this IAR could also be effective for evaluations of other subjects or events | 3.86 (.69) | 3.82 (.60) | p = .93 |
13. Generally, I consider the IAR methodology effective for achieving objective and concrete results | 3.86 (.69) | 4.09 (.54) | p = .50 |
14. The results of the IAR can contribute to put the most important defects in the COVID-19 response in ports/on airports timely on the agenda | 3.86 (.69) | 3.64 (.67) | p = .53 |
15. The results of the IAR can contribute to put the defects in coordination and cooperation on the agenda | 3.86 (.69) | 3.82 (.75) | p = .89 |
16. The results of the IAR can contribute to identify, repeat and retain solutions and efficient examples from practice | 3.86 (.69) | 4.00 (.63) | p = .68 |
17. The results of the IAR can contribute to support and strengthen individuals to improve handling the challenges of the COVID-19 response | 3.43 (.79) | 3.82 (.60) | p = .39 |
18. The results of the IAR can contribute to draw attention to solutions of new capacity developed during the COVID-19 response | 3.86 (.69) | 4.18 (.75) | p = .39 |