Difference between revisions of "RM analysis Carmen Gil"
Carmen Gil (talk | contribs) |
Carmen Gil (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Individual Evaluation== | ==Individual Evaluation== | ||
===[[DARM DA study exercise Group 1|Group 1]]=== | ===[[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. | + | This assessment aims to evaluate the decision of the vaccination campaign in Finland by comparing it 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. |
===[[DARM DA Study Exercise group 2|Group 2]]=== | ===[[DARM DA Study Exercise group 2|Group 2]]=== | ||
Revision as of 12:59, 8 April 2011
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en4972 |
|---|
| Moderator:Carmen Gil (see all) |
|
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
| Upload data
|
Contents
Ministry’s point of view
Individual Evaluation
Group 1
This assessment aims to evaluate the decision of the vaccination campaign in Finland by comparing it 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.
