Difference between revisions of "RM analysis Anna Kokkonen"
(→The perspective of the journalist) |
(→Group 2) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
===Group 2=== | ===Group 2=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''[[Relevance:]]''' The purpose of this analysis was to assess how vaccination would impact on the swine flu pandemic if the whole population would be vaccinated or only risk groups. The content of the analysis is very relevant to the stated purpose of the analysis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''[[Pertinence:]]''' This is the information MSHA needs to get to decide whether it is enough to do some action for the specific population or should everybody conclude in the actions (effectiveness). | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''[[Usability:]]''' The analysis would give very important information about the effectiveness to vaccinate critical population compared to whole population. In future based on this analyses MSHA could decide would it be enough effective to vaccinate only risk group if similar kind of pandemic would face Finland again. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''[[Acceptability:]]''' Results would be acceptable to MSHA because this analyses is considering extensively these two decisions. | ||
===Group 3=== | ===Group 3=== | ||
Revision as of 07:39, 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).
Group 2
Relevance: The purpose of this analysis was to assess how vaccination would impact on the swine flu pandemic if the whole population would be vaccinated or only risk groups. The content of the analysis is very relevant to the stated purpose of the analysis.
Pertinence: This is the information MSHA needs to get to decide whether it is enough to do some action for the specific population or should everybody conclude in the actions (effectiveness).
Usability: The analysis would give very important information about the effectiveness to vaccinate critical population compared to whole population. In future based on this analyses MSHA could decide would it be enough effective to vaccinate only risk group if similar kind of pandemic would face Finland again.
Acceptability: Results would be acceptable to MSHA because this analyses is considering extensively these two decisions.
Group 3
Group 4
Overall statement
The perspective of the journalist
Group 1
Relevance and pertinence: As a journalist I published an article at the beginning of swine flu epidemic in Finland. In the article I told how alarming situation it was about to face Finland and how important it would be to get vaccination to prevent spreading of swine flu. Then after a while of vaccination, narcolepsy cases started to come up. What a juicy story to tell! Then I wrote an another article about how vaccine was actually dangerous and how it was completely wrong action of ministry to decide to vaccinate the whole population when there were not enough research for safety of the vaccine. Now that epidemic has calm down and this kind of decision analyses have been made I can again write an article and convince public that despite of these adverse effects the decision to vaccinate was right one. For me the DA analysis is relevant to stated purpose and the purpose is relevant to my needs to get enough information for my article about the vaccination decision.
Usability: The analyses increased my understanding of the swine flu case and from this analyses I would get material for my next article to consider actions of MSHA.
Acceptability: As a journalist I’m convinced that the analyses is acceptable.
