Fig. 2

Pattern match display comparing importance versus feasibility ratings by cluster. Importance and feasibility rating scales are represented by the two vertical lines. Clusters are positioned on each line in descending order of importance and feasibility respectively. Rating values refer to average cluster ratings derived from average indicator ratings from within each cluster. Overall, the correlation between the ratings for importance and feasibility was moderately positive (r = .58). This indicates that participants perceptions of the importance are well aligned with their perceptions of feasibility. The degree of slope of the lines connecting cluster ratings on the left (Importance) to same ratings on the right (Feasibility) illustrates this alignment. For example, there was a great deal of correspondence between importance and feasibility to implement the indicators contained in the clusters of the Governance and Leadership domain. Also, all participants agreed on the relative low importance and feasibility of the Social Mobilisation and Research cluster. Conversely, the majority of clusters of Service Delivery, Financing and Oversight were, on average, perceived as relatively less important and less feasible to implement with the exception of the cluster Monitoring and Accountability which was ranked second highest for importance. Indicators of barriers to access to rehabilitation were rated almost as important as Service Coverage, Utilization and Outcomes but hardest to implement. Service Financing and Quality Control and Higher Education clusters were perceived equally important, although indicators in the former were thought to be more difficult to implement. ¹p < 0.02, ²p < 0.005