RM analysis June: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The content has the potential to influence future decision making process, the '''quality of the information''' is good and applicable. | The content has the potential to influence future decision making process, the '''quality of the information''' is good and applicable. | ||
===Citizen's point of view=== | ===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== | ||
Revision as of 00:06, 11 April 2011
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en4979 |
|---|
| Moderator:June (see all) |
|
|
| Upload data
|
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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
The content of example swine flu/narcolepsy model is relevant and coherent in relation to the stated purpose which is to determine the overall health impact of the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccination in Finland in 2009-2010? Given current knowledge and to find out which was the better decision between vaccinating as happened versus vaccinating no-one versus not vaccinating the population aged 5-19?. The quality of the content is good and informative, the assessment and information is available.
Point of view of Ministry of Health
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.
Citizen's point of view
The assessment is open and information about the assessment is available, the result is clear comprehensive and useful. It also has the potential to influence the choice on whether or not to be vaccinated or not, and to take action if ill advised about vaccination.
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.