View source for RM analysis Kati Iso-Markku

[[category:DARM exercise]]

==Group 1==


The purpose of Group 1´s study is to evaluate the impact of vaccination in Finland and if it was a right decision to vaccinate the whole population. They are thinking about if in contrast to vaccinating everybody only risk groups would have been vaccinetad or nobody would have been vaccinated.  They will look at data from Finland where vaccination was recommended for whole population and Mexico where vaccinations were not done.  A lot of information is needed before calculations can be done and this would be a long and thorough analysis.


'''Perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health Affairs'''
*Relevance: The content of the study analysis is relevant  in relation to the purpose. It effectively takes into account the different variables influencing the outcomes.
*Pertinence: The analysis is done after the epidemic to help understand if the right decisions were made. This will help in the future if similar situations occur and it will also give useful information that can be shared with the public. The public interest is very high concerning the decisions that were made during the swine flu pandemic and the ministry is held responsible, therefore we need to show that we are evaluating the actions and decisions that were taken.
*Usability:The idea of the analysis is easy to grasp, but there are many variables and much information that needs to be gathered before the actual analysis could be done. But it gives a good idea about the things that were/would have been influencing on the outcomes. When the analysis is done, it would increse the undestanding of the swine flu case as a whole.
*Acceptability: If all information is gathered from reliable sources and there are precise estimations, the results would be acceptable to the ministry


'''Perspective of a journalist'''
*Relevance: The analysis seems very thorough and would propably be sufficient for the stated purposes.
*Pertinence: The purpose of the analysis is relevant to my needs, because there is still huge public interest towards the swine flu case.
*Usability:I can somewhat grasp the main idea, but the analysis as a whole seems very large with many different things influencing on it. 
*Acceptability: The results of the analysis would be acceptable if it is done without pressure from the ministry.

==Group 2==


The purpose of the study analysis by group 2 is to evaluate the impact of vaccination on the swine flu pandemic in Finland and the individuals who will be vaccinated. They are looking into the possible decisions of vaccinating everybody (total coverage) or vaccinating only risk groups (75 % coverage). Major interest is on the number of new swine flu cases before and after vaccination and on the possible adverse effects caused by the vaccine. Analysis is done between june 2009 and the year 2011, so results and possible decisions would be done after the swine flu pandemic.


'''Perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health Affairs'''
*Relevance: The purpose is stated to be analysis of the impact of vaccination on swine flu. The actual study question is not presented and this makes the purpose a bit vague, but the content of the analysis seems relevant.
*Pertinence: The purpose of the analysis is relevant to the Ministry, because it is important to know the actual impacts of vaccination.  
*Usability: The idea of the analysis is not completely clear because there seems to be some differences in the stated purpose and the actual analysis, scenarios and decision variables. If this analysis provides data about whether vaccination with total coverage or only within risk groups is a better solution, this analysis can be very useful to the ministry in the future.
*Acceptability: The results of group 2´s analysis are not shown, but based on the information about the methods of calculating the results the Ministry would accept the results of this analysis.


'''Perspective of a journalist'''
*Relevance: The purpose of the analysis seems relevant to the content.
*Pertinence: As a journalist I am very interested to know if good results would have been achievable with a smaller portion of population being exposed to the vaccine and to its possible adverse effects.
*Usability: The purpose part of the analysis seems not to fit completely with the rest of the analysis, but I understand the idea in the other parts very well. With an incomplete analysis it is difficult to say how much it would increase my understanding on the matter of swine flu.
*Acceptability: The group states in the beginning of the analysis that they "aim to support the decision to vaccinate..."  This gives an impression that the analysis is not done objectively, so I wouldn´t accept the results very easily.

==Group 3==


Group 3 is analyzing the effect of potential installation of thermal scanners detecting swine flu symptoms situated at all arrival points to Finland. They are asking if the use of thermal scanners and PCR-tests at all arrival points  could prevent the spreading of swine flu into Finland. The plan would include placing potential carriers of the virus into quarantine. This analysis would be performed in the year 2009 before swine flu is detected in Finland. Decision options would be to use thermal scanners combined with PCR-tests and no use of scanners.


'''Perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health Affairs'''
*Relevance: The content of the plan is very relevant to the purpose and answers the question asked.
*Pertinence: The Ministry estimates that the spreading of swine flu to Finland is not preventable and is focusing on different questions related to the swine flu, so the analysis is not that relevant to our needs. But the ministry is interested to hear the results of this analysis.
*Usability: The idea of the analysis is easy to grasp, it is presented very well and clearly and offers valuable information about the spreading of the virus.
*Acceptability: Based on the results the recommendation of group 4 is not to use thermal scanners. This is acceptable to the Ministry.


'''Perspective of a journalist'''
*Relevance: The purpose and content of this analysis go well together.
*Pertinence: The information this analysis offers is very relevant to my needs, because it gives a new perspective to the possible containment of the swine flu virus.
*Usability: The analysis is planned and described in an easily understandable way. Even a non-expert can understand this analysis quite well. It is simple but also offers valuable information about swine flu.
*Acceptability: I would accept the results from this analysis.

==Group 4==


Group 4 is interested in examining the effect of possibly postponing vaccination and implementing an extensive hygiene campaign. They are analyzing if this would result in a better outcome than immediately vaccinating the whole population with a vaccine that is not thoroughly researched. The decision options are to vaccinate immediately or to postpone decision about vaccination.  This analysis takes place in the spring of 2009 before the swine flu has been detected in Finland.


'''Perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health Affairs'''
*Relevance: The content seems relevant to the stated purpose.
*Pertinence: The purpose of the analysis is very relevant to the needs of the ministry, because it deals with one of the main issues raised by the pandemic: what is the best way to handle the situation.
*Usability: The idea is easy to grasp and it is presented in a clear and logical manner. Important information is presented.
*Acceptability: The results are based on assumptions and no clear calculations are shown. so the results as such are not acceptable without more information.


'''Perspective of a journalist'''
*Relevance: The content seems to clearly  answer the proposed question.
*Pertinence: The purpose of the analysis is very relevant, because the public will be interested to know what information the decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate is based on.
*Usability: The idea of the analysis is easy to understand, it is presented well. The analysis provides some new information about the swine flu pandemic.
*Acceptability: Results would be acceptable if actual numbers and calculations were shown, now it seems that the result are based on estimates. But the estimates seem reasonable and propable to me.

==Overall Statements==


'''Ministry of Social and Health Affairs'''
*Group 1:The analysis is done during 2009-2011, so this analysis would hold great value in the evaluation of the Ministry itself. With the current knowledge and comparison between countries who decided differently about the vaccination, we can evaluate if the right decisions were made.
*Group 2: We hope for more information on the analysis and more precise purpose definition, but the idea of the plan is good and would provide valuable results to the Ministry in future situations.
*Group 3: The Ministry is interested to hear the results of this analysis and would look closer into it if the analysis would strongly recommend thermal scanners as a way of preventing the spreading of the disease. The idea seems a bit unrealistic from the start and there are doubts within the ministry about the execution of this plan. The main interest and focus of the Ministry is on the decision options concerning the vaccine.
*Group 4:  The Ministry is very interested in this analysis but it still requires more work, calculations and numbers before the results can be taken into consideration and the true value of the analysis is revealed. 


'''Journalist'''
*Group 1:There has been a lot of speculation about the decisions and actions by the health care officials during the swine flu pandemic. The press and the public are interested to know if it was a right decision to vaccinate the whole population. This analysis would be highly valuable and would give a good basis for an interesting article where the actions of the Ministry could be put on trial. 
*Group 2: The analysis done by group 2 is not finished so it´s value is still unclear. It is possible that parts of the analysis are not done objectively, so I would look into the backgrounds of the people participating in this analysis and concentrate on what they are trying to achieve and why.
*Group 3: This analysis is very interesting and it provides a good idea for a story where different possibilities for preventing and handling the spreading of the virus are introduced to the public. A story about all travellers being scanned and possibly tested for swine flu would definitely attract the attention of the public. Focus of the press has been on possible vaccination purchases so this feels like a fresh point of view to the pandemic.
*Group 4: Analysis by group 4 is about an interesting and important topic. It could be presented to the public in a form of a news story as it is, but it should be noted that it requires more precise calculations and results before it gives reliable results and conclusions. I believe that the idea would be received with high interest among the public.