RM analysis Kati Iso-Markku: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (an optional extra task added)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{encyclopedia|moderator=Kati Iso-Markku|stub=}}
==Main Points==
*
*
*
*
*




[[Category:DARM exercise]]
==Group 1==


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:
=Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs=
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:


# 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 [[:heande:Purpose and properties of good assessments|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


=Perspective of a journalist=
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:


EXTRA: also include consideration/evaluation of the [[Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination|example swine flu/narcolepsy model]] (discussed in 8.4. lecture) in your report/presentation.
 
==Group 2==
 
=Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs=
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:
 
 
=Perspective of a journalist=
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:
 
 
==Group 3==
 
=Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs=
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:
 
 
=Perspective of a journalist=
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:
 
 
==Group 4==
 
=Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs=
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:
 
 
=Perspective of a journalist=
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:
 
 
==Overall Statements==
 
=Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs=
 
=Perspective of a journalist=
 
 
==Evaluation of the swine flu/narcolepsy model==
#Relevance:
#Pertinence:
#Usability:
#Acceptability:

Revision as of 12:51, 9 April 2011

Main Points


Group 1

Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:


Perspective of a journalist

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:


Group 2

Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:


Perspective of a journalist

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:


Group 3

Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:


Perspective of a journalist

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:


Group 4

Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:


Perspective of a journalist

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:


Overall Statements

Perspective of the ministry of Social and Health Affairs

Perspective of a journalist

Evaluation of the swine flu/narcolepsy model

  1. Relevance:
  2. Pertinence:
  3. Usability:
  4. Acceptability:
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=RM_analysis_Kati_Iso-Markku&oldid=20242"