Difference between revisions of "RM analysis Anna Kokkonen"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===Group 1=== | ===Group 1=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Relevance:]] Purpose of this DA analysis was to evaluate if decision to vaccinate whole population were right or should there have been no vaccination at all. There were mentioned the scenario to vaccinate only risk groups but this is not taken into account in the analysis. Despite of that the plan is relevant to the stated purpose. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Pertinence:]] MSHA is interested in also decision to vaccinate only risk groups. There is lack of assessment of this decision. However MSHA got important information about decision to vaccinate the whole population versus no vaccination. It seems that despite the side effects of vaccine the benefit of vaccination is still more explicit. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Usability:]] The idea of the analyses increased MSHA’s understanding of the swine flu case. That is to say it supported MSHA’s view in the swine flu case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Acceptability:]] MSHA got important information about the vaccination decision but the analyses were a bit incomplete or insufficient. MSHA would require more information to analysis (like risk group issues). | ||
| + | |||
===Group 2=== | ===Group 2=== | ||
Revision as of 06:27, 9 April 2011
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en4973 |
|---|
| Moderator:Anna Kokkonen (see all) |
|
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
| Upload data
|
Contents
The perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health affairs
Group 1
Relevance: Purpose of this DA analysis was to evaluate if decision to vaccinate whole population were right or should there have been no vaccination at all. There were mentioned the scenario to vaccinate only risk groups but this is not taken into account in the analysis. Despite of that the plan is relevant to the stated purpose.
Pertinence: MSHA is interested in also decision to vaccinate only risk groups. There is lack of assessment of this decision. However MSHA got important information about decision to vaccinate the whole population versus no vaccination. It seems that despite the side effects of vaccine the benefit of vaccination is still more explicit.
Usability: The idea of the analyses increased MSHA’s understanding of the swine flu case. That is to say it supported MSHA’s view in the swine flu case.
Acceptability: MSHA got important information about the vaccination decision but the analyses were a bit incomplete or insufficient. MSHA would require more information to analysis (like risk group issues).
