RM analysis Anna Kokkonen
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en4973 |
|---|
| Moderator:Anna Kokkonen (see all) |
|
|
| Upload data
|
RM presentation 11.4.2011
Overall statement
These analyses give more information about alternative choices for vaccination of the whole population. There are considered to take actions before the pandemic will even come up by thermal scanners (group 3) or extensive hygiene campaign (group 4). When considering decision to vaccinate there is a choice to vaccinate only risk groups (group 2) instead of vaccinate everyone (group 1). Also the choice not to vaccinate anyone has been considered (group 1). By these analyses MSHA could consider which choice(s) will give the most effective outcome and what decision(s) should be made in the future if there will be similar pandemic situation.
Point of view DA study plan of group 2:
The perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health Affairs
Relevance: The purpose of this analysis was to assess how vaccination would impact on the swine flu pandemic if the whole population would be vaccinated or only risk groups. The content of the analysis is very relevant to the stated purpose of the analysis.
Pertinence: This is the information MSHA needs to get to decide whether it is enough to do some action for the specific population or should everybody conclude in the actions (effectiveness).
Usability: The analysis would give very important information about the effectiveness to vaccinate critical population compared to whole population. In future based on this analysis MSHA could decide that would it be enough effective to vaccinate only risk group if similar kind of pandemic would face Finland again.
Acceptability: Results would be acceptable to MSHA because this analysis considers extensively these two decisions.
The perspective of the journalist
Relevance: For journalist this approach would be very interesting to assess what is the meaning of vaccination coverage to incidence of harmful narcolepsy cases. I could awake feelings of readers.
Pertinence: Purpose of the analysis is relevant to my needs to write feelings awaken story (for instance a 10 year old boy got narcolepsy due vaccine - what if he wouldn’t be vaccinated if ministry would have wanted to vaccinate only risk groups and now this boy would be healthy and not suffering from illness which will effect on his whole life and future).
Usability: I could consider in my article if there would have been less narcolepsy cases when only risk groups had been vaccinated and if prevent of spreading the swine flu would have been as effective as by vaccinating the whole population. As a journalist I love “what if” cases and readers are interested in this kind of “what if” thinking. Especially I could pander to parents whose child got narcolepsy due to vaccination.
Acceptability: I am very convinced about the acceptability of the analysis. For me it seems to consider many important issues.
The perspective of the Ministry of Social and Health affairs
Group 1
Relevance: Purpose of this DA analysis was to evaluate if decision to vaccinate whole population were right or should there have been no vaccination at all. There were mentioned the scenario to vaccinate only risk groups but this is not taken into account in the analysis. Despite of that the plan is relevant to the stated purpose.
Pertinence: MSHA is interested in also decision to vaccinate only risk groups. There is lack of assessment of this decision. However MSHA got important information about decision to vaccinate the whole population versus no vaccination. It seems that despite the side effects of vaccine the benefit of vaccination is still more explicit.
Usability: The idea of the analysis increased MSHA’s understanding of the swine flu case. That is to say it supported MSHA’s view in the swine flu case.
Acceptability: MSHA got important information about the vaccination decision but the analysis were a bit incomplete or insufficient. MSHA would require more information to analysis (like risk group issues).
Group 2
Relevance: The purpose of this analysis was to assess how vaccination would impact on the swine flu pandemic if the whole population would be vaccinated or only risk groups. The content of the analysis is very relevant to the stated purpose of the analysis.
Pertinence: This is the information MSHA needs to get to decide whether it is enough to do some action for the specific population or should everybody conclude in the actions (effectiveness).
Usability: The analysis would give very important information about the effectiveness to vaccinate critical population compared to whole population. In future based on this analyses MSHA could decide would it be enough effective to vaccinate only risk group if similar kind of pandemic would face Finland again.
Acceptability: Results would be acceptable to MSHA because this analyses is considering extensively these two decisions.
Group 3
Relevance: The purpose of this analysis was to assess if 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 analysis is very relevant in stated purpose of the analysis.
Pertinence: This is interesting view relating to swine flu case but MSHA is not convinced that thermal scanners combined with PCR test alone would be helpful to prevent the spreading of swine flu (or some other pandemic). Quarantine is critical point. There might be possibility that quarantine is ineffective. What to do then?
Usability: In future this could be a supplemental tool in preventing spread of some pandemic. There should be some other ways to control pandemic as well (hygiene campaign or vaccination etc).
Acceptability: Results would be very acceptable because there are very extensive consideration of different important variables.
Group 4
Relevance: The purpose of this analysis was to assess the impact if the vaccination of the population would be postponed and reconsidered after proper testing and extensive hygiene campaign, than if the whole population would be vaccinated immediately. The analysis is relevant in stated purpose of the analysis.
Pertinence: Previously MSHA hasn’t considered what is the impact of extensive hygiene campaign alone on preventing pandemic. Now this analysis gives significant information about that.
Usability: By this analysis MSHA can consider if in the future during some pandemic it would be better off not to vaccinate immediately the whole population but start hygiene campaign at first. That way it might be possible to reduce adverse effects of vaccination (like narcolepsy cases).
Acceptability: The analysis includes extensively considered variables. The analysis is acceptably.
Overall statement
Overall statement: These analyses give more information about alternative choices for vaccination of the whole population. There are considered to take actions before the pandemic will even come up by thermal scanners (group 3) or extensive hygiene campaign (group 4). When considering decision to vaccinate there is choice to vaccinate only risk groups (group 2) instead of vaccinate everyone (group 1). Also the choice not to vaccinate anyone has been considered (group 1). By these analyses MSHA could consider which choices will give the most effective outcome and what decision(s) should be made in the future if there will be similar pandemic situation.
The perspective of the journalist
Group 1
Relevance and pertinence: As a journalist I published an article at the beginning of swine flu epidemic in Finland. In the article I told how alarming situation it was about to face Finland and how important it would be to get vaccination to prevent spreading of swine flu. Then after a while of vaccination, narcolepsy cases started to come up. What a juicy story to tell! Then I wrote an another article about how vaccine was actually dangerous and how it was completely wrong action of ministry to decide to vaccinate the whole population when there were not enough research for safety of the vaccine. Now that epidemic has calm down and this kind of decision analyses have been made I can again write an article and convince public that despite of these adverse effects the decision to vaccinate was right one. For me the DA analysis is relevant to stated purpose and the purpose is relevant to my needs to get enough information for my article about the vaccination decision.
Usability: The analysis increased my understanding of the swine flu case and from this analysis I would get material for my next article to consider actions of MSHA.
Acceptability: As a journalist I’m convinced that the analysis is acceptable.
Group 2
Relevance: For journalist this approach would be very interesting to assess what is the meaning of vaccination coverage to incidence of harmful narcolepsy cases. I could awake feelings of readers.
Pertinence: Purpose of the analysis is relevant to my needs to write feelings awaken story (for instance a 10 year old boy got narcolepsy due vaccine - what if he wouldn’t be vaccinated if ministry would have wanted to vaccinate only risk groups and now this boy would be healthy and not suffering from illness which will effect on his whole life and future).
Usability: I could consider in my article if there would have been less narcolepsy cases when only risk groups had been vaccinated and would prevent of spreading swine flu be as effective as vaccinating the whole population. As a journalist I love “what if” cases and readers are interested in this kind of “what if” thinking. Especially I could pander to parents whose child got narcolepsy due to vaccination.
Acceptability: I am very convinced about the acceptability of the analysis. For me it seems to consider many important issues.
Group 3
Relevance: The analysis is relevant in stated purpose of the analysis.
Pertinence: I am writing an article about preventing the spread of some future pandemic and by this DA analysis I could have new approach to my article. I could discuss if there would be a tool to prevent pandemic even before the pandemic has landed to the country. This is why the purpose of the analysis is relevant in my needs.
Usability: This analysis gives material for my work.
Acceptability: Results would be acceptable.
Group 4
Relevance: The analysis is relevant in stated purpose of the analysis.
Pertinence: I want to consider if it really is necessary to vaccinate the whole population immediately after swine flu cases (or other pandemic) will come up. As a journalist I can spread the importance message of hygiene in preventing the spread of diseases. This DA analysis presents the effectiveness of extensive hygiene campaign.
Usability: This analysis gives me material for my work.
Acceptability: For me results seem to be acceptable.