RM analysis Sallamari Tynkkynen

This page is a encyclopedia article. The page identifier is Op_en4980
Moderator:Sallamari Tynkkynen (see all)
Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en4980}}

EXTRA: also include consideration/evaluation of the example swine flu/narcolepsy model (discussed in 8.4. lecture) in your report/presentation. 

Group 1

Ministry point of view:

• Relevance: Content of the analysis is relevant in relation to the purpose of the study.
• Pertinence: The purpose of the analysis is relevant for the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health because it evaluates if it was a good decision to vaccinate the whole population. The results of this analysis can be applied in the future.
• Usability: The idea of the analysis is easy to grasp. It studies two differnt actions that could have been taken in stead of vaccinating the whole population and thus sheds light on several scenarios that could have happened.
• Acceptability: I believe the results of this analysis after calculations would be acceptable.
• Overall statement: The results from this analysis could be applied in the future and the vaccination strategy in future epidemics could be reconcidered.

Common citizen point of view:

• Pertinence: The question whether to vaccinate the whole population or not affects the common citizen significantly.
• Usability: The research question in this analysis is obvious and easy to grasp. It is easy for a common citizen to understand and also evaluate himself.
• Overall statement: From the point of view of a common citizen the decision not to vaccinate the whole population is better in the sense that it is a less invasive method. Then there would be no risk of side effects from vaccination but there would be a higher risk for the prevalence of swine flu to increase.

Group 2

Ministry point of view:

• Relevance: Content of the analysis is relevant in relation to the purpose of the study.
• Pertinence: Purpose of the study is relevant for the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and this analysis can be useful in the future when making decision about whether to vaccinate the whole population or just some groups.
• Usability: The idea of the study is easy to grasp, although the precise research question could have been stated more clearly.
• Acceptability: I believe the results of this analysis after calculations would be acceptable.
• Overall statement: In future epidemics more options about vaccination strategies could be concidered. It is not just wheter to vaccinate or not but you could also vaccinate only the priority group and risk groups.

Common citizen point of view:

• Pertinence: This analysis raises the question whether to vaccinate all population or just risk groups. For common citizen this is a relevant question, because it evalutates if it would be possible to stop the epidemic with jsut vaccinating part of the population, which would save time, money and reduce the amount of possible side effects caused by the vaccination.
• Usability: The idea of the analysis is easy for everubody to understand and it increses common citizen's understanding about different variables affecting the vaccination plan.
• Overall statement: The research question in this analysis is significant for a common citizen as it raises the possibility of most of the poeple not having to get vaccinated and still being able to stop the spreading of the disease.

Group 3

Ministry point of view:

• Relevance: Content of the analysis is relevant in relation to the purpose of the study.
• Pertinence: I believe this analysis is quite useful for the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. When controlling future pandemics that include fever as common symptom, thermal scanners can be considered.
• Usability: The idea of the analysis is clear and easy to grasp. It states its purpose clearly and it is easy to follow.
• Acceptability: This analysis could be continued with calculations that are suggested in the results to determine whether thermal scanners are truly effective in preventing the spreding of a influenza pandemic or not.
• Overall statement: These results can be used if a similar influenza type pandemic with fever as major symptom would be spreading.

Common citizen point of view:

• Pertinence: The topic of this analysis affects the life of common citizens during a pandemic quite a lot, because if it is successful it means that people do not need to go through vaccinations and they are saved from a lot of trouble.
• Usability: The idea of this analysis is understandable for a common citizen, allthough the precise methods used might be a bit complicated (e.g. PCR).
• Overall statement: For a common citizen this analysis is interesting, because it concentrates on fighting the pandemic before it reaches Finland. If successful, this method could save lives and prevent side effects in a quite non-invaisve way. On the other hand, thermal scanners also make travelling more difficult and if false positives occur in large numbers, they may cause frustration and anger among people.

Group 4

Ministry point of view:

• Relevance: Content of the analysis is relevant in relation to the purpose of the study.
• Pertinence: This analysis can be useful to the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in the future with similar influenza epidemics. The usefulness and need of vaccination should be evaluated thoroughly before making a desicion.
• Usability: The idea of the analysis is clear and easy to grasp.
• Acceptability: I believe the conslusion of the analysis is acceptable. The analysis could be taken further and all the variables should be studied more in order to get a more extensive view on the subject.
• Overall statement: The purpose and results of this study may cause the Ministry to concider vaccination decision for a longer period of time in future situtations.

Common citizen point of view:

• Pertinence: For a common citizen the proper evaluation of the safety of a vaccination is very relevant, because they are the ones who will suffer from the potential side effects. Also common citizen is in a key position in this analysis, because the possible success of the extensive hygiene campaign is a lot dependend on the participation and actions of common citizens.
• Usability: I believe that the idea of this analysis is easy for a common citizen to understand because it does not include difficult terms etc. It increases the understanding about decision making and possible options of action in the swine flu case.
• Overall statement: I think this question about whether postponing the vaccination would have been a better option is relevant for a common citizen and an interesting question for the general public.

Summary

Groups 1,2 and 4 study the vaccination decision in their analysis, which is propably the most obvious research question in the swine flu case. They all have a bit different point of view with differencies in suggested decision variables. From the Ministry poin of view analyzing the vaccination decision is highly usefull as vaccinations are likely to be the easiest way of preventing epidemics. The decision whether to vaccinate or not to vaccinate or who to vaccinate affects the life of common citizens and is thus relevant for them. Especially in the analysis of group 4 common citizens are in a key role because their awareness and activity is highly significant in determining whether a hygiene campaign succeeds or not. Group 3 has a very different approach in their analysis as it concentrates in fighting the disease in the borders before it actually reaches Finland. The use of thermal scanners is a less invasive method than vaccinating the whole population as it affects only smaller part of the population. It might however cause frustration among some groups of people who travel often or if high numbers of false positives would occur. Overall, these studies together increase the understanding about the swine flu epidemic and provide information about different variables for future decision making.