RM analysis Carmen Gil
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en4972 |
|---|
| Moderator:Carmen Gil (see all) |
|
|
| Upload data
|
Ministry’s point of view
Individual Evaluation
Group 1
This assessment aims to evaluate the decision of the vaccination campaign in Finland by comparing it with the outcome in countries where there was no vaccination campaign (e.g. Mexico). Selective immunization of risk groups is also mentioned, but this option is not developed in the assessment. Therefore, this assessment would be done after the pandemic. It is a very useful assessment because we can learn from this situation and improve the management in the future. This assessment has a good approach (comparison of two countries with and without vaccination campaigns). However, not enough information is provided on how the analysis would be done.
Group 2
Group 2 proposed an assessment on the impact of the vaccine on the pandemic and the public health in Finland if it was carried out as a mass vaccination or selective immunization of risk groups. This information is the most valuable at this point, since in the actual situation (when there is the threat of a pandemic) we need to take measures to protect the public health. The most effective measure is usually the vaccine. This assessment can effectively compare the impacts of both decisions using DALYs. It could be directly applied on the decision on who to vaccinate.
Group 3
This would be a secondary assessment. After we have assessed whether the vaccination campaign should be carried out right away or not, we could continue with the decision of waiting until the vaccine has been properly tested. Group 3 consider the use of thermal scanners and PCR tests as a tool to identify infected people arriving in Finland so that they can be put in quarantine and avoid the spreading of the virus. This assessment is useful to gain knowledge on alternative options to vaccination (needed because the vaccine has not been tested thoroughly) and could have an effect on other assessments, like the one proposed by Group 2.
Group 4
This assessment also proposes the option of postponing the vaccine vs. starting the vaccination campaign now. In this case, a hygiene campaign would be carried out until the vaccine is properly tested. It is well focused and provides information on the effectiveness of hygiene campaigns. Like in the case of the assessment by Group 3, it is useful to gain knowledge on alternative options to vaccination and it could have an effect on other assessments.
Evaluation table
| Group | Relevance | Pertinence | Usability | Acceptability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| 2 | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| 3 | ++ | + | ++ | ++ |
| 4 | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
Overall Evaluation
All these assessments could be integrated in a plan which would consider the mass vaccination campaign or vaccinate only certain risk groups (G2), or postpone campaign and use hygienic measures (G4) or thermal scanners coupled with PCR tests (G3) to control the spreading of the virus and make an assessment “a posteriori” of the decision on the vaccine (G1). Furthermore, the results of the groups 1 and 3 could be included in the other two assessments.
Layman’s point of view
Group 1
Now that the pandemic has finished, I am interested in knowing if the decision on the vaccination was the right one. In my opinion, media has given a very alarmist view of the swine flu. Also, certain sectors of the population think that this was a pharmaceutical strategy to earn money. This assessment has an understandable approach and I would trust the results. The outcome may have an influence on my trust to authorities and media.
Group 2
I would like to know if the vaccine is a safer choice before I take it. Are the risks of negative outcomes from the vaccine better or worse than getting swine flu? It seems that the assessment is well focused, however, I have aversion towards vaccines and might not take the swine flu vaccination even if it is recommended.
Group 3 & 4
From these two assessments I can get information on how safe we are in Finland now that there are swine flu cases in other countries but it has not yet arrived here. Can we do something to stop the spreading or we can just take the vaccine and wait for the epidemic? From these results I can decide if I want to take the vaccination or not (given that it would be available for people willing to take it). The results of the assessment of group 3 could also have an effect on my decision to travel abroad, because I would fear to become infected and be quarantined. However, I would not mind that these methods are installed to protect the public health. About the assessment of group 4, I would try to modify my behaviour to follow the hygienic measures, but it is difficult to remember always.
Evaluation table
| Group | Relevance | Pertinence | Usability | Acceptability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ++ | ++ | + | +++ |
| 2 | +++ | +++ | ++ | ++ |
| 3 | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| 4 | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |