RM analysis June: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{encyclopedia|moderator=June|stub=}} | {{encyclopedia|moderator=June|stub=}} | ||
[[Category:DARM exercise]] | [[Category:DARM exercise]] | ||
=Overall Statement= | |||
*Relevance: The content of all the groups is relevant and coherent in relation to the groups stated purpose and seeks to answer the questions in the analyses. | |||
*Pertinence: The results from the analyses would be useful for future scenarios with regards to the decision on whether (to vaccinate or not), when (immediate or later) and who (mass or risk group) to vaccinate and at the same time whether other additional prevention strategies like thermal scanners need to be introduced and applied. They therefore have potential for use by their intended users. | |||
*Acceptability: Due to the open nature and availability of the analyses for peer reviewing, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the groups analysis process therefore the expected results for the groups are accepted. However the expected results for [[DARM DA study exercise Group 1|Group1]], [[DARM DA Study Exercise group 2|Group 2]] and [[DARM DA study exercise group 4|Group 4]] will be strongly accepted after supporting calculations and analyses have been done. [[DARM DA study exercise group 3|Group 3]] has preliminary results which at this point is acceptable until proven otherwise. Sensitivity and value of information analyses would be useful to find out whether uncertain variables would have an overall effect in the decision of each group. | |||
=Summary of Perspectives= | |||
==Ministry of Health== | |||
*Relevance: The analyses of the groups are coherent and the results seem to answer the stated questions. | |||
*Pertinence: The results have the potential to influence future decision making process with regards to the questions that the analyses seek to answer. Of importance to note is the need to consider time dimension in future scenarios as was focused on by groups 3 and 4. The process of analysis which involves quantifying decisions is useful to find out whether past decisions were the right decisions as was analysed by group 1,2 and 4. | |||
*Acceptance: The reasoning behind the expected results is sound, the quality and source of information for each group looks credible though may need verification with Ministry of Health data before complete acceptance of the results. | |||
==Citizen== | |||
*Relevance: Based on expert view and opinion, the analyses answer the question in the analyses | |||
*Pertinence: The results are informative and if they are conclusive and communicated to a common citizen, they may provide public motivation and confidence that past decisions (which in-turn influenced individual decisions) at decision maker’s level were the right ones. If the analyses results do not favour such decisions, they may lower public confidence in the decision making process and this may be a motivation to take an active role to act in future disease prevention strategies. | |||
*Acceptability: All, the results are accepted as long as there is strong backing from expert analysts and as long as an individual citizens can relate to the question the analysis seeks to answer based on a real life situation. | |||
=DA Study Plans Evaluation= | =DA Study Plans Evaluation= | ||
==Study Group 1== | ==Study Group 1== | ||
===User's point of view=== | |||
The content of [[DARM DA study exercise Group 1|Group1]] is relevant and coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to evaluate the impact of vaccination in Finland and whether this was the right decision as was done. The content addresses the question and the expected results are useful to the intended users. The expected results indicate that DALYs would be lower for decision to vaccinate the whole population than not to vaccinate anyone and this will be accepted after supporting calculations and analyses have been done. | |||
===Point of view of Ministry of Health=== | |||
The content has the potential to influence future decision making process, the quality of the information is good and applicable if calculations and analyses are done. | |||
===Citizen's point of view=== | |||
Though the analysis is not open and information not available to citizens the overall expected results would be useful to influence individual choice on vaccination. | |||
==Study Group 2== | ==Study Group 2== | ||
===User's point of view=== | |||
The content of [[DARM DA Study Exercise group 2|Group 2]] is relevant and coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to find out impact on the swine flu pandemic in Finland due to vaccination of risk groups instead of mass coverage vaccination. The expected results indicate that DALYs would be expected to be more in mass vaccination coverage (from Pandemrix) than target risk group vaccination and these results will be accepted after supporting calculations and analyses have been done.It may be good to do a sensitivity and value of information analyses to find out whether uncertain variables would have an overall effect in the decision to vaccinate risk groups. | |||
===Point of view of Ministry of Health=== | |||
The expected results if calculated would be useful and applicable and has the potential to influence future decision making process on whether to do mass coverage or risk target group vaccination. | |||
===Citizen's point of view=== | |||
The analysis is open and available. The overall expected results would be useful and has potential to influence individual choice on vaccination. | |||
==Study Group 3== | ==Study Group 3== | ||
===User's point of view=== | |||
The content of [[DARM DA study exercise group 3|Group 3]] is coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to find out whether the use of thermal scanners combined with PCR tests prevent the spreading of swine flu to Finland if all passengers arriving to from abroad will be scanned at the border control points. The simple model used to calculate variable output is clear. More information is needed for conclusive results. The preliminary results are accepted that the use of thermal scanners and PCR tests would not be recommended is accepted based on the premise that infected individuals entering Finland could only be avoided during 4 or 5 days. | |||
===Point of view of Ministry of Health=== | |||
The expected results if calculated would be applicable in future decision making process whether or not to introduce thermal scanner and the overall health impact of such use on the spread of the virus in Finland. | |||
===Citizen's point of view=== | |||
==Study Group 4== | ==Study Group 4== | ||
===User's point of view=== | |||
The content of [[DARM DA study exercise group 4|Group 4]] is relevant and coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to examine the effects of possibly postponing the decision of vaccinating the population of Finland. The preliminary expected results is yet to be calculated before it is accepted. | |||
===Point of view of Ministry of Health=== | |||
The expected results if calculated would be useful and applicable and has the potential to influence future decision making process whether or not to postpone vaccinaton decision and what is the quantifiable health impact of the decision. | |||
===Citizen's point of view=== | |||
The result if calculated would influence the choice on whether to be vaccinated or not, and to take action if ill advised about vaccination. | The result if calculated would influence the choice on whether to be vaccinated or not, and to take action if ill advised about vaccination. | ||
=Example swine flu/narcolepsy model= | |||
===User's point of view=== | |||
*The content of [[Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination|example swine flu/narcolepsy model]] is | *Relevance: The content of [[Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination|example swine flu/narcolepsy model]] is coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to determine the overall health impact of the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccination in Finland during 2009-2010 given current knowledge; and answers the question "which was the better decision between vaccinating as happened, vaccinating no-one versus and vaccinating the population aged 5-19?. The quality of the content is good and informative, the assessment and information is available and the sources of information credible. | ||
: | *Pertinence: The results are very useful and because there is some similarity with [[DARM DA study exercise Group 1|Group1]], after calculations the results from the two can be useful in forming conclusions on the past decision to vaccinate and provide future guidance if the same decision needs to be made. | ||
*The results would be useful and applicable and has the potential to influence future decision making process whether to vaccinate with little knowledge on vaccine efficacy and to estimate or quantify the health impact of the decision. | *Acceptability:The results are accepted based on the supporting calculations though they look complex until proven otherwise upon further review. It would be of interest to find out the role of time in this assessment as considered by [[DARM DA study exercise group 3|Group 3]] and [[DARM DA study exercise group 4|Group 4]] . | ||
: | |||
*The | ===Point of view of Ministry of Health=== | ||
*Relevance: The results provides answers to the assessment questions. The content is comprehensive. | |||
*Pertinence:The results would be useful and applicable and has the potential to influence future decision making process whether to vaccinate with little knowledge on vaccine efficacy and to estimate or quantify the health impact of the decision. | |||
*Acceptability: There is no reason to believe that the analysis process is flawed, however, sources and quality of information need to be verified before the results are fully accepted. | |||
===Citizen's point of view=== | |||
*Relevance: The purpose and reasoning behind the assessment is clear but the details are complex | |||
*Pertinence: The results indirectly has the potential to influence individual choice on whether or not to be vaccinated, and to take action if ill advised about vaccination. | |||
*Acceptability: The results have been communicated in a comprehensive way and are accepted based on further clarification if any needed. | |||
Latest revision as of 20:44, 11 April 2011
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en4979 |
|---|
| Moderator:June (see all) |
|
|
| Upload data
|
Overall Statement
- Relevance: The content of all the groups is relevant and coherent in relation to the groups stated purpose and seeks to answer the questions in the analyses.
- Pertinence: The results from the analyses would be useful for future scenarios with regards to the decision on whether (to vaccinate or not), when (immediate or later) and who (mass or risk group) to vaccinate and at the same time whether other additional prevention strategies like thermal scanners need to be introduced and applied. They therefore have potential for use by their intended users.
- Acceptability: Due to the open nature and availability of the analyses for peer reviewing, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the groups analysis process therefore the expected results for the groups are accepted. However the expected results for Group1, Group 2 and Group 4 will be strongly accepted after supporting calculations and analyses have been done. Group 3 has preliminary results which at this point is acceptable until proven otherwise. Sensitivity and value of information analyses would be useful to find out whether uncertain variables would have an overall effect in the decision of each group.
Summary of Perspectives
Ministry of Health
- Relevance: The analyses of the groups are coherent and the results seem to answer the stated questions.
- Pertinence: The results have the potential to influence future decision making process with regards to the questions that the analyses seek to answer. Of importance to note is the need to consider time dimension in future scenarios as was focused on by groups 3 and 4. The process of analysis which involves quantifying decisions is useful to find out whether past decisions were the right decisions as was analysed by group 1,2 and 4.
- Acceptance: The reasoning behind the expected results is sound, the quality and source of information for each group looks credible though may need verification with Ministry of Health data before complete acceptance of the results.
Citizen
- Relevance: Based on expert view and opinion, the analyses answer the question in the analyses
- Pertinence: The results are informative and if they are conclusive and communicated to a common citizen, they may provide public motivation and confidence that past decisions (which in-turn influenced individual decisions) at decision maker’s level were the right ones. If the analyses results do not favour such decisions, they may lower public confidence in the decision making process and this may be a motivation to take an active role to act in future disease prevention strategies.
- Acceptability: All, the results are accepted as long as there is strong backing from expert analysts and as long as an individual citizens can relate to the question the analysis seeks to answer based on a real life situation.
DA Study Plans Evaluation
Study Group 1
User's point of view
The content of Group1 is relevant and coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to evaluate the impact of vaccination in Finland and whether this was the right decision as was done. The content addresses the question and the expected results are useful to the intended users. The expected results indicate that DALYs would be lower for decision to vaccinate the whole population than not to vaccinate anyone and this will be accepted after supporting calculations and analyses have been done.
Point of view of Ministry of Health
The content has the potential to influence future decision making process, the quality of the information is good and applicable if calculations and analyses are done.
Citizen's point of view
Though the analysis is not open and information not available to citizens the overall expected results would be useful to influence individual choice on vaccination.
Study Group 2
User's point of view
The content of Group 2 is relevant and coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to find out impact on the swine flu pandemic in Finland due to vaccination of risk groups instead of mass coverage vaccination. The expected results indicate that DALYs would be expected to be more in mass vaccination coverage (from Pandemrix) than target risk group vaccination and these results will be accepted after supporting calculations and analyses have been done.It may be good to do a sensitivity and value of information analyses to find out whether uncertain variables would have an overall effect in the decision to vaccinate risk groups.
Point of view of Ministry of Health
The expected results if calculated would be useful and applicable and has the potential to influence future decision making process on whether to do mass coverage or risk target group vaccination.
Citizen's point of view
The analysis is open and available. The overall expected results would be useful and has potential to influence individual choice on vaccination.
Study Group 3
User's point of view
The content of Group 3 is coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to find out whether the use of thermal scanners combined with PCR tests prevent the spreading of swine flu to Finland if all passengers arriving to from abroad will be scanned at the border control points. The simple model used to calculate variable output is clear. More information is needed for conclusive results. The preliminary results are accepted that the use of thermal scanners and PCR tests would not be recommended is accepted based on the premise that infected individuals entering Finland could only be avoided during 4 or 5 days.
Point of view of Ministry of Health
The expected results if calculated would be applicable in future decision making process whether or not to introduce thermal scanner and the overall health impact of such use on the spread of the virus in Finland.
Citizen's point of view
Study Group 4
User's point of view
The content of Group 4 is relevant and coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to examine the effects of possibly postponing the decision of vaccinating the population of Finland. The preliminary expected results is yet to be calculated before it is accepted.
Point of view of Ministry of Health
The expected results if calculated would be useful and applicable and has the potential to influence future decision making process whether or not to postpone vaccinaton decision and what is the quantifiable health impact of the decision.
Citizen's point of view
The result if calculated would influence the choice on whether to be vaccinated or not, and to take action if ill advised about vaccination.
Example swine flu/narcolepsy model
User's point of view
- Relevance: The content of example swine flu/narcolepsy model is coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to determine the overall health impact of the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccination in Finland during 2009-2010 given current knowledge; and answers the question "which was the better decision between vaccinating as happened, vaccinating no-one versus and vaccinating the population aged 5-19?. The quality of the content is good and informative, the assessment and information is available and the sources of information credible.
- Pertinence: The results are very useful and because there is some similarity with Group1, after calculations the results from the two can be useful in forming conclusions on the past decision to vaccinate and provide future guidance if the same decision needs to be made.
- Acceptability:The results are accepted based on the supporting calculations though they look complex until proven otherwise upon further review. It would be of interest to find out the role of time in this assessment as considered by Group 3 and Group 4 .
Point of view of Ministry of Health
- Relevance: The results provides answers to the assessment questions. The content is comprehensive.
- Pertinence:The results would be useful and applicable and has the potential to influence future decision making process whether to vaccinate with little knowledge on vaccine efficacy and to estimate or quantify the health impact of the decision.
- Acceptability: There is no reason to believe that the analysis process is flawed, however, sources and quality of information need to be verified before the results are fully accepted.
Citizen's point of view
- Relevance: The purpose and reasoning behind the assessment is clear but the details are complex
- Pertinence: The results indirectly has the potential to influence individual choice on whether or not to be vaccinated, and to take action if ill advised about vaccination.
- Acceptability: The results have been communicated in a comprehensive way and are accepted based on further clarification if any needed.
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.