RM analysis Minna Ruokolainen
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en4977 |
|---|
| Moderator:Minna Ruokolainen (see all) |
|
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
| Upload data
|
Contents
Evaluation of DA study plans
Group 1
Group 1 studied the question whether the decision to vaccinate the whole Finnish population was right or should the vaccination campaing has been left undone at all. The assessment of decision not to launch vaccination campaing in Finland was done by comparison situation in Mexico where was not carried out vaccination campaing. Also the possibility to vaccinate only the priority and risk groups was considered. The analysis would have been carried out from June 2009 to March 2011.
Ministry´s point of view
- Relevance: The content of DA plan is quite relevant to the purpose of the analysis. The possibility of chosen the selective vaccination campaing (only priority and risk groups would have been vaccinated) that was mentioned as one of the decision variables was finally not dealed with in the plan.
- Pertinence: The time point when this analysis would be done is after the epidemic - ´lessons to learn´-type analysis. So we in the ministry would carry out and easily use this type of analysis in the future, when a new influenza epidemic will breaking out and we will considering shall we launch a massive vaccination campaing or not.
- Usability:
- Acceptability:The results of this analysis would be acceptable. Although the results are not yet available, I think that the final results will be as the group 1 estimated: the decision to vaccinate whole population was right one.
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?
Citizen´s point of view
- Relevance:
- Pertinence:
- Usability:
- Acceptability:
Group 2
Group 2 studied how vaccination impacted on the swine pandemic in Finland: was the massive vaccination campaing right decision or should it had been limited to the priority and risk groups. The study would have been carried from June 2009 to 2011.
Ministry´s point of view
- Relevance:
- Pertinence:
- Usability:
- Acceptability:
Citizen´s point of view
- Relevance:
- Pertinence:
- Usability:
- Acceptability:
Group 3
The group 3 studied whether the use of thermal scanners together with PCR-tests and together with the quarantine of swine flue ´positive´persons, has been an effective method for preventing the swine flu spreading to Finland from abroad. The time point of study would have been spring 2009, before any swine flu cases were confirmed in Finland.
Ministry´s point of view
- Relevance:
- Pertinence:
- Usability:
- Acceptability:
Citizen´s point of view
- Relevance:
- Pertinence:
- Usability:
- Acceptability:
Group 4
The group 4 studied the effects of possibly postponing the swine flu vaccinating. The epidemic would have been controlled with a hygiene campaign until the swine flu vaccine would have been properly tested and possible adverse side effects have been detected. The time point of study would have been spring 2009.
Ministry´s point of view
- Relevance:
- Pertinence:
- Usability:
- Acceptability:
Citizen´s point of view
- Relevance:
- Pertinence:
- Usability:
- Acceptability:
Overall evaluation of DA study plans
Evaluation of Swine Flu model
- Relevance:
- Pertinence:
- Usability:
- Acceptability:
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:
- 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?
- 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
EXTRA: also include consideration/evaluation of the example swine flu/narcolepsy model (discussed in 8.4. lecture) in your report/presentation.
