RM analysis Jacob Attipoe

This page is a encyclopedia article. The page identifier is Op_en4978
Moderator:Jacob Attipoe (see all)
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. {{ #opasnet_rater: }}
Upload data Show results

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:

1. Evaluate all four DA study plans from the use/r point of view:
   • Of what value would each of the planned analysis be for you?
   • Make use of the 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?
2. Give an overall statement: How could/should the results of these analyses be taken into account in your project?
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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

Group 1

The purpose was to evaluate the impact of swine flu when everyone is vaccinated or when no one is vaccinated

Ministry's point of view

Relevance: the plan is relevant to the stated purpose.

Pertinence: it seeks to address the issue of reduction in adverse effect associated with the vaccination in the general population.

Usability: information obtained from the vaccination can be used for future campaigns

Acceptability: the plan will be acceptable based on the risk-benefit analysis

Group 2

Group 2 sought to find out the impact of vaccination on the swine flu pandemic when everybody is vaccinated or when risk group members are vaccinated.

Ministry's point of view

Relevance: seeks to protect those in the risk group from the swine flu while also minimizing the adverse effects in others who may not be at risk.

Pertinence: the purpose is relevant to what the MHSA needs because it gives a clear basis to compare swine flu or vaccine effects in vaccinated or non vaccinated individuals.

Usability: the results will determine the decision option comparing risks and benefits

Acceptability: the results will be acceptable since the effect of the vaccine can be directly assessed from the general population

Group 3

The group focused on the prevention of the spread swine flu in Finland by detecting the virus in travelers by the use of thermal scanners.

Ministry's point of view

Relevance: this is relevant in prevention of the disease by detecting the virus and quarantining those carrying it.

Pertinence: the purpose is relevant to the Ministry.

Usability: the analysis gives a very important strategy to minimize the spread of the flu.

Acceptability: in principle this plan can be accepted but must be pointed out that not all cases can be identified 100%.

Group 4

The group sought to the use of hygiene campaign to delay the initiation of vaccination in order to gather more information about the vaccine before it is used so as to minimize the adverse effects.

Ministry's point of view

Relevance: to prevent the occurrence of the adverse effects known now, the vaccine needed to be studied more.

Pertinence: this is in principle is good but those with compromised immunity need to be taken into consideration

Usability: the ministry could use this information to prevent the discomfort of adverse effects of vaccines in future vaccination campaigns.

Acceptability: even though the results are good, not everybody has immunity against the flu therefore, some vaccination still needs to be done in order to provide some immunity to those who may not have the immunity.

Overall statement

EXTRA: also include consideration/evaluation of the example swine flu/narcolepsy model (discussed in 8.4. lecture) in your report/presentation.