WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION REGIONAL COMMITTEE Eighth Session Hong Kong 5-11 September 1957
REGION.L\L OFFICE FOR THE WESTERN PACIFIC TECHNICl.L DISCUSSIONS WP/RC8/TDA-3 10 September 1957 ENGLISH ONLY SUMMARY OF EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
It will be most helpful for the planning of futuro Tcc~~ical Discussions if you will answcr the follmving questions frankly. Thank you. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SIGN YOUR NAME. 1.
What is your opinion of the appropriateness of the subject selected for the Technical Discussions? Highly valuable 13 Valuable 14 Of some value 4 Of no value 0
2.
The working papers were: Very helpful 16 Of some help 13 Not very helpful 2
Unsatisfactory
0
3.
Did you gain any new ideas or concepts as a result of the Technical Discussions? Hany
-------
7
Quite a few
11
--------
Some
8
--------
Not many
--------
5
Nono
--------
o
4. What is your estimate of the follow·ing sessions? Ve:;I. helEful Of some holE Not so hclEful Of no hol;e Tour of Leprosarium Small Group Discussions Final Plenary Session too lightly treated? Yes If ~
19
11
1
0 0 0
19 15
8 13
4 3
5. Were there any items of special interest to you which ·were lcft out, or 10 No 21 please indicate topics. Orgfu1ization and administration of mass campaigns against Leprosy - usc of para medical personnel to make up for shortages of professional staff - cost of such campaigns problem of ensuring that patient continuos regular treatment over sufficiently long periods.
1.
WP/RC8/TDA-3 Page 2
2.
Epidemiologic and laboratory research establish criteria for infectiousness and non-infectiousness. of how to persuade population that (a) leprosy is not dangerous when present in the community (b) leprosy can be treated.
3. Subject of public education in leprosy - detailed studies
4. The possibility of developing some safe prophylactic technique to protect child contacts effectively so that they could safely be left with their parents.
5. Fuller epidemiological analysis and status of immune process in the disease.
6. How legislation or absence of legislation relating to leprosy control influences the actual control of leprosy_
7. Contact follOW-up and control was not sufficiently emphasized as a valuable and essential control measure.
8. 9. 6.
Leprosy treatment information was not clear and incomplete. An international conference is a must in order to have an exchange of ideas by exports.
In your opinion were the methods and techniques used during the Technical Discussions satisfactory? Yes 28 No 2 Will you please suggest improvements which can be made or alternatives. 1. 2. Think reporting back of group leaders would have been more useful than panel. The methods arc good. ~
3. 4.
little less of looking on rcpr~scntatives and observers as third-rate medical students by one or tyro of the experts.
The Chairman should try to keep the discussions on control of leprosy - as much as possible rather than research and treatment, though there was a minimum of this. in offering vieVls ~d
5. Round table discussions arc to be encouraged. The experts information could be more brief.
6.
The time spent for each speaker on the panel should be limited (5-10 minutes). plenary session.
7. More time for <luestions to the representatives in the last
WP/RCB/TDA- 3 Page 3
B. Longer periods of observing (a) patients (b) control methods (c) the literature.
9. Not sufficient time in plenary session. 10. 11. 7. Too short and unable to discuss at length a very important subject. More time for group discussions.
Did you find the usc of the small discussion groups a satisfactory vray of stimulating ideas? Yes 29 No 1 Technical Discussions? 11 17 Harclly 1 Ample ____ Enough ____ enough ____ Too little 1
B. Do you think there was enough opportunity for participation during the
9.
Did you have a chance to express your own ideas?
14 Enough ____ 13 Hardly 3 Ample ____ enough ____ Too Little 10. Vr.hat did you like 1. ~
o
about the Technical Discussions?
Leprosy (4) The small discussion groups (11) The practical introduction - just session at leprosarium Exchanges of opinion and experience of yridely diffcrent types (3)
2.
3. 4.
(4)
5. Question and answer across the floor (2) 6. 7. The participation of leprosy experts The Chairman The information given by the exports
B.
9. Very good but too short 10. 11. 11. Friendly atmosphere Leprosy surgery by Dr. Tran van Bang of Viet Ham ~'echnica1
What did you like LEAST about the 1.
Discussions?
The lack of attention to the practical problems of running leprosy campaigns.
WP/RC8/TDA-3 Page 4-
2.
Details about surgery in loprosy - not important to public health. The lccturcttc session by experts - a short (.!.uestion and answer quiz vrould have given group more information in the same time. in its discussions.
3.
4. Plenary session too vague
5. Too long speoches by exp0rts. 6. Too short.
7. The movie (2). 8. '1'ho final plenary sossion YTo.s occupied too much by experts (2) •
9. Not being able to hear clearly. 10.
The relJor-cS of the discussion groups 'sore not given out early enough to ena.blc the data. to be givon sufficient thought.
12. 13. 12.
In last session lack of time.
evel~thing
ua.s discussed too rapidly due to
Not enough technical information.
On tho whole, how do you rate the Technical Disc1.Jssions? Excollcn,t-i.....Vcry good...lZ..-Reasonably good__ 6_Hediocro.....l-Poor 0