Difference between revisions of "Talk:Decision analysis and risk management"
(→Draft synopsis: part of the case study exercise ideas written down) |
(→Case study exercise idea: far from a clear description, but the basic idea should be explicit enough) |
||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
#* e.g. did the emergence of new knowledge affect what should have been decided at different moments of time? | #* e.g. did the emergence of new knowledge affect what should have been decided at different moments of time? | ||
# Consideration of the quality of various bits of evidence (meaning virtually all relevant information) used as the basis for decisions? | # Consideration of the quality of various bits of evidence (meaning virtually all relevant information) used as the basis for decisions? | ||
| − | #* e.g. | + | #* e.g. in relation to properties of good assessment |
| + | #* e.g. in terms of value of information | ||
| + | #* The relationships between the main factors in the case affecting the decisions made/to be made | ||
| + | ''(exercise 1 would correspond roughly to the introduction and methods sections of a scientific article) | ||
'''Exercise two: individual work | '''Exercise two: individual work | ||
| Line 121: | Line 124: | ||
''This can also be combined as a part of the group work if so desired | ''This can also be combined as a part of the group work if so desired | ||
| + | {{comment|# |Would it be possible to actually execute the analyses and produce the results according to the plans by using the demonstrator DA model that will (?) be put up in Heande and used in the course?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 13:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)}} | ||
| + | Following your work done in exercise one, and discussions held regarding different outputs of different groups in exercise one, now consider the possible outputs of your analysis, the conclusions that could be made based on them, and the possibilities for their practical realization. In essence, explain what could have been done, try to reason what should have been done, and discuss the possible impacts of having done otherwise than what actually happened. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''General guidance | ||
| + | |||
| + | The main point is not to write long and detailed texts of any specific topic within this course. Instead the idea is to try to make use of what has been taught on the course by combining them in relation to a practical question. Most important issues in evaluating the exercises are: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * general clarity of thought | ||
| + | * comprehension and description of the big picture | ||
| + | * meaningful interrelations between the aspects of the case | ||
| + | * application of the knowledge and methods provided in lectures, exercises and discussions along the course | ||
| + | * ability to argue for or against different statements or actions | ||
=== Suunnittelussa huomioonotettavaa === | === Suunnittelussa huomioonotettavaa === | ||
Revision as of 13:54, 5 February 2011
Draft synopsis
Introduction to course: content and methods
CASE 1-2: Intro: how problem emerged, global problem
Risk management: what is managed, who is responsible, what is included? traditional paradigm
- Look from decision-maker's point of view: needs, communication, and assessment all included
- Openness: RA, RM, RC are not totally separate
- Performance: Context about what we actually aim to achieve. Ho do we know if we succeeded?
- Developing risk management options.
- Development of risk assessment questions.
- Science-policy interface. Why it does not exist.
Intro to Opasnet
CASE 3: Preparedness in Finland and internationally
CASE 4: Vaccination campaigns, counter-campaigns
- Should we launch vaccination campaign?
- Should I take vaccination? Should I not take vaccination?
Decision analysis: introduction: decision trees
- Purpose of assessment: Why it is done
- Concepts: decisions, objectives, optimisation, uncertainty
Subjective probabilities, exercise
- Bayesian rule and Bayesian networks.
- Denis Lindley: Philosophy of probabilities
CASE 5: First deaths of swine flu (threat was real) CASE 6: Problems with implementation: long queues in health centers
CASE 7: Clear-cut case falls apart. False alarm? Disease was milder than thought.
Decision-making under uncertainty
- Assessment performance? Quality of evidence? Impacts of uncertainty in decision-making. Hindsight.
- Use of adjuvants. How similar is the same? Can/Should be aim at zero risk? Benefit-risk comparisons.
- Acceptability
- Value of information
CASE 8: Secret connections to drug industry?
Case 9: Narcolepsy
Trialogue, collective learning
- Justified true belief and its problems
- Inference rules: how do we know what we know?
- Shared information vs. private information
- Actions by a group based on shared information
- Shared belief systems
- Risk assessment as a collaborative project of information production.
Scientific method, falsification.
- Do we need pre-peer-review?
Discussion section here?
Opasnet section here?
CASE 10: Vaccination campaign halted.
CASE 10b: THL remains silent
CASE 11: Narcolepsy analysis
Why openness is needed
- Impacts of openness on topics discussed.
Opasnet and other web tools for risk assessment.
- Practical and technical things to get started.
- Aim: to learn skills that are needed to perform and participate in practical training.
Discussion section here?
CASE 12: Publishing of narcolepsy results and apologies
CASE 13: Searching for the quilty.
Discussion: Lectures of concepts
- Pragma-dialectic argumentation theory.
- Parts of argumentation.
Structuring of discussions in practice and theory
- Ready-made texts: discussions and organisation
- Homework: evaluate relevance - validity of arguments. Discuss in groups the next day.
- Build a structured discussion out of this in groups.
- Possibly utilise group writing tools?
Case study: practical work
- Decision analysis
- Revisiting of policy question
- Impact of closedness/openness in this case (opportunity or threat?)
- Risk communication: how should it have been done?
Case study exercise idea
Imagine that the Ministry of Social and Health affairs of Finland has given you, as an expert in protecting and promoting public health, an assignment to assess the case of AH1N1 (aka swine flu) vaccinations and the sudden increase in narcolepsy among young people in Finland. The minister expects your assessment to shed light on e.g following aspects of the issue:
- Did something go wrong? If so, what, when, and why?
- How could have things been done better? What, when, and why?
- With the knowledge we have now in this situation, what could/should be done?
- What can be learned about this case regarding possible similar urgent public health risk management situations in the future?
- Are there any more general risk management or other lessons to learn from this case?
Exercise one: group work (~3-5 people/group)
Based on the lecture and exercise contents, the materials and discussions regarding the swine flu/narcolepsy case on this course, as well as all your own expertise and opinions, work out a plan how such a study could/should be made. The plan should address at least the following:
- Background description of the case, the most important question related to it, the relevant actors related to the case, and their roles in relation to the case
- Analysis of decision options, and their order of preference, at different times along the progress of the case
- e.g. what are the relevant decisions, and options, and who are the decision makers?
- e.g. did the emergence of new knowledge affect what should have been decided at different moments of time?
- Consideration of the quality of various bits of evidence (meaning virtually all relevant information) used as the basis for decisions?
- e.g. in relation to properties of good assessment
- e.g. in terms of value of information
- The relationships between the main factors in the case affecting the decisions made/to be made
(exercise 1 would correspond roughly to the introduction and methods sections of a scientific article)
Exercise two: individual work
This can also be combined as a part of the group work if so desired
--# : Would it be possible to actually execute the analyses and produce the results according to the plans by using the demonstrator DA model that will (?) be put up in Heande and used in the course? --Mikko Pohjola 13:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Following your work done in exercise one, and discussions held regarding different outputs of different groups in exercise one, now consider the possible outputs of your analysis, the conclusions that could be made based on them, and the possibilities for their practical realization. In essence, explain what could have been done, try to reason what should have been done, and discuss the possible impacts of having done otherwise than what actually happened.
General guidance
The main point is not to write long and detailed texts of any specific topic within this course. Instead the idea is to try to make use of what has been taught on the course by combining them in relation to a practical question. Most important issues in evaluating the exercises are:
- general clarity of thought
- comprehension and description of the big picture
- meaningful interrelations between the aspects of the case
- application of the knowledge and methods provided in lectures, exercises and discussions along the course
- ability to argue for or against different statements or actions
Suunnittelussa huomioonotettavaa
- aikataulurajoitteet
- tila-, väline- yms. vaatmukset
- tilavaraukset
- videointi, koneet, verkko?
- DA-mallin kehikko
- infomateriaali omatoimiseen työhön
- case
- käsitteistö ja teoria
- perusasialuennot ? työnjako, suunnitelmat, tausta- ja esitysmateriaalit
- harjoitustehtävät ? peruskäsitteistö yms. / DA-case / kyselyt kurssin kuluessa
