RM analysis Bate: Difference between revisions
m (an optional extra task added) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
[[Category:DARM exercise]] | [[Category:DARM exercise]] | ||
=GROUP 1= | |||
==The Minister== | |||
The aim of the work was clearly stated either to vaccinate or not, to fight against the spread of swine flu in Finland. With the results stating that vaccinating the population would reduce the spread of the pandemic in Finland. | |||
Relevance: The content was relevant for the purpose of vaccinating. | |||
Pertinence: Vaccinating the populations as stated in the purpose was a more acceptable measure to curb the spread of the flu. | |||
Usability: Using the vaccine to the target groups and the population at the right period and time would help to reduce the spread in Finland. | |||
Acceptability: I do accepts the results from this assessment,hence vaccinating the population would help reduce the spread of the pandemic. | |||
==The Journalist== | |||
Relevance: Bases on the assessment vaccinating the population was relevant idea. | |||
Pertinence: I as the journalist i would like to communicate this assessment to the entire population,since the aim was so relevant for awareness on the pandemic spread. | |||
Usability: I think it would be useful for the public to be aware of the vaccination campaign, hence the circulation of information via all the media would be of help. | |||
Acceptability: With a decrease in DALYs from the assessment on the decission to vaccinate i do accept the use of vaccination. | |||
=GROUP 2= | |||
==The Minister== | |||
The main aim of the assessment was to vaccinate the entire population and to asses the possible side effects from the vaccine. | |||
Relevance: The content of the assessment was relevant to the purpose. | |||
Pertinence: The purpose for this assessment was relevant for use. | |||
Usability:At this point we need to vaccinate since we want to reduce the spread of this pandemic,its is the only measure to reduce the spread of the pandemic in Finland. | |||
Acceptability: The mass vaccination of the population would help reduce the risk of the spread of the flu in Finland since the side effects of the vaccine have not yet been felt by many of those that have been vaccinated. | |||
==The Journalist== | |||
Relevance: The content is relevant to the purpose. | |||
Pertinence:The purpose is relevant to use , but mass awareness of it should be made to the population. |
Revision as of 20:32, 10 April 2011
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en5091 |
---|
Moderator:Bate (see all) |
|
Upload data
|
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.
GROUP 1
The Minister
The aim of the work was clearly stated either to vaccinate or not, to fight against the spread of swine flu in Finland. With the results stating that vaccinating the population would reduce the spread of the pandemic in Finland.
Relevance: The content was relevant for the purpose of vaccinating.
Pertinence: Vaccinating the populations as stated in the purpose was a more acceptable measure to curb the spread of the flu.
Usability: Using the vaccine to the target groups and the population at the right period and time would help to reduce the spread in Finland.
Acceptability: I do accepts the results from this assessment,hence vaccinating the population would help reduce the spread of the pandemic.
The Journalist
Relevance: Bases on the assessment vaccinating the population was relevant idea.
Pertinence: I as the journalist i would like to communicate this assessment to the entire population,since the aim was so relevant for awareness on the pandemic spread.
Usability: I think it would be useful for the public to be aware of the vaccination campaign, hence the circulation of information via all the media would be of help.
Acceptability: With a decrease in DALYs from the assessment on the decission to vaccinate i do accept the use of vaccination.
GROUP 2
The Minister
The main aim of the assessment was to vaccinate the entire population and to asses the possible side effects from the vaccine.
Relevance: The content of the assessment was relevant to the purpose.
Pertinence: The purpose for this assessment was relevant for use.
Usability:At this point we need to vaccinate since we want to reduce the spread of this pandemic,its is the only measure to reduce the spread of the pandemic in Finland.
Acceptability: The mass vaccination of the population would help reduce the risk of the spread of the flu in Finland since the side effects of the vaccine have not yet been felt by many of those that have been vaccinated.
The Journalist
Relevance: The content is relevant to the purpose.
Pertinence:The purpose is relevant to use , but mass awareness of it should be made to the population.