Difference between revisions of "RM analysis Carmen Gil"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (an optional extra task added)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
[[Category:DARM exercise]]
 
[[Category:DARM exercise]]
  
−
Take the perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health affairs. Consider yourself managing a project of developing capacity to manage major public health risks. In your project you want to take account of the lessons that could be learned from the swine flu case. In this exercise your task is to:
+
=Ministry’s point of view=
 +
==Individual Evaluation==
 +
===[[DARM DA study exercise Group 1|Group 1]]===
 +
This assessment aims to evaluate the decision of the vaccination campaign in Finland by comparing with the outcome in countries where there was no vaccination campaign (e.g. Mexico). Selective immunization of risk groups is also mentioned, but this option is not developed in the assessment. Therefore, this assessment would be done after the pandemic. It is a very useful assessment because we can learn from this situation and improve the management in the future. This assessment has a good approach (comparison of two countries with and without vaccination campaigns). However, not enough information is provided on how the analysis would be done.
  
−
# Evaluate all four DA study plans from the use/r point of view:
+
===[[DARM DA Study Exercise group 2|Group 2]]===
−
#* Of what value would each of the planned analysis be for you?
+
Group 2 proposed an assessment on the impact of the vaccine on the pandemic and the public health in Finland if it was carried out as a mass vaccination or selective immunization of risk groups. This information is the most valuable at this point, since in the actual situation (when there is the threat of a pandemic) we need to take measures to protect the public health. The most effective measure is usually the vaccine. This assessment can effectively compare the impacts of both decisions using DALYs. It could be directly applied on the decision on who to vaccinate.
−
#* Make use of the [[:heande:Purpose and properties of good assessments|properties of good assessment framework]], particularly:
 
−
#** Relevance: ''Is content of the plan/analysis relevant in relation to the stated purpose of the analysis?
 
−
#** Pertinence: ''Is the purpose of the analysis relevant in relation your needs?
 
−
#** Usability: ''Can you grasp the idea of the plan/analysis? Does it increase your understanding of the swine flu case?
 
−
#** Acceptability: ''Would results/conclusions be acceptable to you? Why or why not?
 
−
# Give an overall statement: How could/should the results of these analyses be taken into account in your project?
 
−
# Choose (one) another perspective and repeat the evaluation of the DA study plans from that perspective
 
−
#* E.g. common citizen, medical superintendent in a health care center, health researcher, journalist, nurse in public health care, principal of an elementary school, …
 
−
#* Focus on the differences in comparison to the above evaluation
 
−
# Write an (freely formatted) evaluation report on your own RM analysis page (see the list of links at the bottom of the page)
 
−
#* If you do not yet have a page, create. Advice, if needed, may be asked e.g. from fellow students or the lecturers
 
−
#* Aim for a clear and concise report.
 
−
#* Active commenting of of other groups individuals works can earn you pluses that will be considered in the overall grading of the course
 
−
# Present your main findings in the final seminar 11.-12.4.
 
−
#* Improvements on the report page can be made up to the final evaluation in the end of April
 
  
 +
===[[DARM DA study exercise group 3|Group 3]]===
 +
This would be a secondary assessment. After we have assessed whether the vaccination campaign should be carried out right away or not, we could continue with the decision of waiting until the vaccine has been properly tested. Group 3 consider the use of thermal scanners and PCR tests as a tool to identify infected people arriving in Finland so that they can be put in quarantine and avoid the spreading of the virus. This assessment is useful to gain knowledge on alternative options to vaccination (needed because the vaccine has not been tested thoroughly) and could have an effect on other assessments, like the one proposed by Group 2.
  
−
EXTRA: also include consideration/evaluation of the [[Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination|example swine flu/narcolepsy model]] (discussed in 8.4. lecture) in your report/presentation.
+
===[[DARM DA study exercise group 4|Group 4]]===
 +
This assessment also proposes the option of postponing the vaccine vs. starting the vaccination campaign now. In this case, a hygiene campaign would be carried out until the vaccine is properly tested. It is well focused and provides information on the effectiveness of hygiene campaigns. Like in the case of the assessment by Group 3, it is useful to gain knowledge on alternative options to vaccination and it could have an effect on other assessments.
 +
 
 +
===Evaluation table===
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
! Group
 +
! Relevance
 +
! Pertinence
 +
! Usability
 +
! Acceptability
 +
|-----
 +
| [[DARM DA study exercise Group 1|1]]
 +
| +
 +
| ++
 +
| ++
 +
| ++
 +
|-----
 +
| [[DARM DA Study Exercise group 2|2]]
 +
| +++
 +
| +++
 +
| +++
 +
| +++
 +
|-----
 +
| [[DARM DA study exercise group 3|3]]
 +
| ++
 +
| +
 +
| ++
 +
| ++
 +
|-----
 +
| [[DARM DA study exercise group 4|4]]
 +
| ++
 +
| ++
 +
| ++
 +
| ++
 +
|-----
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
==Overall Evaluation==
 +
All these assessments could be integrated in a plan which would consider the mass vaccination campaign or vaccinate only certain risk groups (G2), or postpone campaign and use hygienic measures (G4) or thermal scanners coupled with PCR tests (G3) to control the spreading of the virus and make an assessment “a posteriori” of the decision on the vaccine (G1). Furthermore, the results of the groups 1 and 3 could be included in the other two assessments.
 +
 
 +
=Layman's point of view=
 +
===[[DARM DA study exercise Group 1|Group 1]]===
 +
Now that the pandemic has finished, I am interested in knowing if the decision on the vaccination was the right one. In my opinion, media has given a very alarmist view of the swine flu. Also, certain sectors of the population think that this was a pharmaceutical strategy to earn money.
 +
 
 +
===[[DARM DA Study Exercise group 2|Group 2]]===
 +
I would like to know if the vaccine is a safer choice before I take it. Are the risks of negative outcomes from the vaccine better or worse than getting swine flu?
 +
 
 +
===[[DARM DA study exercise group 3|Group 3]] [[DARM DA study exercise group 4|& 4]]===
 +
From these two assessments I can get information on how safe we are in Finland now that there are swine flu cases in other countries but it has not yet arrived here. Can we do something to stop the spreading? Also, from this results I can decide if I want to take the vaccination or not (given that it would be available for people willing to take it).
 +
 
 +
===Evaluation table===
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
! Group
 +
! Interest
 +
|-----
 +
| [[DARM DA study exercise Group 1|1]]
 +
| ++
 +
|-----
 +
| [[DARM DA Study Exercise group 2|2]]
 +
| +++
 +
|-----
 +
| [[DARM DA study exercise group 3|3]]
 +
| +
 +
|-----
 +
| [[DARM DA study exercise group 4|4]]
 +
| +
 +
|-----
 +
|}

Revision as of 12:43, 8 April 2011

Ministry’s point of view

Individual Evaluation

Group 1

This assessment aims to evaluate the decision of the vaccination campaign in Finland by comparing with the outcome in countries where there was no vaccination campaign (e.g. Mexico). Selective immunization of risk groups is also mentioned, but this option is not developed in the assessment. Therefore, this assessment would be done after the pandemic. It is a very useful assessment because we can learn from this situation and improve the management in the future. This assessment has a good approach (comparison of two countries with and without vaccination campaigns). However, not enough information is provided on how the analysis would be done.

Group 2

Group 2 proposed an assessment on the impact of the vaccine on the pandemic and the public health in Finland if it was carried out as a mass vaccination or selective immunization of risk groups. This information is the most valuable at this point, since in the actual situation (when there is the threat of a pandemic) we need to take measures to protect the public health. The most effective measure is usually the vaccine. This assessment can effectively compare the impacts of both decisions using DALYs. It could be directly applied on the decision on who to vaccinate.

Group 3

This would be a secondary assessment. After we have assessed whether the vaccination campaign should be carried out right away or not, we could continue with the decision of waiting until the vaccine has been properly tested. Group 3 consider the use of thermal scanners and PCR tests as a tool to identify infected people arriving in Finland so that they can be put in quarantine and avoid the spreading of the virus. This assessment is useful to gain knowledge on alternative options to vaccination (needed because the vaccine has not been tested thoroughly) and could have an effect on other assessments, like the one proposed by Group 2.

Group 4

This assessment also proposes the option of postponing the vaccine vs. starting the vaccination campaign now. In this case, a hygiene campaign would be carried out until the vaccine is properly tested. It is well focused and provides information on the effectiveness of hygiene campaigns. Like in the case of the assessment by Group 3, it is useful to gain knowledge on alternative options to vaccination and it could have an effect on other assessments.

Evaluation table

Group Relevance Pertinence Usability Acceptability
1 + ++ ++ ++
2 +++ +++ +++ +++
3 ++ + ++ ++
4 ++ ++ ++ ++

Overall Evaluation

All these assessments could be integrated in a plan which would consider the mass vaccination campaign or vaccinate only certain risk groups (G2), or postpone campaign and use hygienic measures (G4) or thermal scanners coupled with PCR tests (G3) to control the spreading of the virus and make an assessment “a posteriori” of the decision on the vaccine (G1). Furthermore, the results of the groups 1 and 3 could be included in the other two assessments.

Layman's point of view

Group 1

Now that the pandemic has finished, I am interested in knowing if the decision on the vaccination was the right one. In my opinion, media has given a very alarmist view of the swine flu. Also, certain sectors of the population think that this was a pharmaceutical strategy to earn money.

Group 2

I would like to know if the vaccine is a safer choice before I take it. Are the risks of negative outcomes from the vaccine better or worse than getting swine flu?

Group 3 & 4

From these two assessments I can get information on how safe we are in Finland now that there are swine flu cases in other countries but it has not yet arrived here. Can we do something to stop the spreading? Also, from this results I can decide if I want to take the vaccination or not (given that it would be available for people willing to take it).

Evaluation table

Group Interest
1 ++
2 +++
3 +
4 +
Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=RM_analysis_Carmen_Gil&oldid=20178"