Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

Standard: Should a health department run a diabetes screening programme?

You run the case. Read the prompt, answer questions from the notes below, and share data only when the candidate asks for it or gets stuck. Score at the end.

Case timer

00:00

Target length:

1. Read the prompt aloud

Read it slowly, then pause. Let the candidate ask questions before they structure.

The health department of an emirate in the UAE is considering a free screening programme for undiagnosed diabetes in adults. It asks you: is the programme worth its cost over five years, and how should it be designed?

Format note: Difficulty: Standard. Format: candidate-led, with interviewer dialogue. Industry: Public sector and healthcare. Region: UAE. Interview length: about 30 minutes. The company is fictional and all figures are illustrative.

2. Answers to clarifying questions

Give these answers only if the candidate asks. If they ask something not listed, give a sensible answer or say it does not matter here.

If asked: Who would be screened?
Answer: Adults aged 30 to 65, about 1,200,000 people, and we expect half of them to take part (illustrative).
If asked: What does a screening cost, and what does it find?
Answer: About AED 60 per person, including the test and follow-up; about 4 percent of those screened are found to have diabetes they did not know about (illustrative).
If asked: What does finding it early change?
Answer: Each person found early avoids about AED 8,000 of treatment for complications over five years, but early treatment costs about AED 1,000 a year (illustrative).

3. The hypothesis a strong candidate states

Listen for an early, testable guess like this one. It does not need to match word for word.

Screening pays off when enough people come and enough cases are found. My hypothesis is that the programme saves more than it costs over five years, but that low participation could make it marginal.

4. A model structure

Compare the candidate's structure with this one. A different split can be just as good if it is clean and fits the problem.

Five-year value = savings from early diagnosis - cost of screening
- Key: Reach: people eligible x participation
- Yield: share of those screened found with diabetes
- Cost per person screened and per case found
- Savings per case found, net of early treatment

5. The working, step by step

Each step shows how a strong candidate works it out. Share a new fact from it only when the candidate asks or is stuck, and let them do the math: the result in the dark box is what they should reach.

Step 1: People screened
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "1,200,000 eligible adults, and half take part."
People screened: 1,200,000 × 0.5 = 600,000
Step 2: Programme cost
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "AED 60 per person screened."
Programme cost (AED): 1,200,000 × 0.5 × 60 = 36,000,000
Step 3: Cases found
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "4 percent of those screened."
Cases found: 1,200,000 × 0.5 × 0.04 = 24,000
Step 4: Cost per case found
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "The cost of one screening divided by the share that finds a case."
Cost per case found (AED): 60 ÷ 0.04 = 1,500
Step 5: Net saving per case
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "AED 8,000 of avoided complications, minus five years of early treatment at AED 1,000 a year."
Net saving per case over five years (AED): 8,000 - 1,000 × 5 = 3,000
Step 6: Total net saving
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Across every case found."
Total net saving over five years (AED): 1,200,000 × 0.5 × 0.04 × (8,000 - 1,000 × 5) = 72,000,000
Step 7: Benefit for each dirham spent
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Total net saving divided by the programme cost."
Benefit to cost ratio: (1,200,000 × 0.5 × 0.04 × (8,000 - 1,000 × 5)) ÷ (1,200,000 × 0.5 × 60) = 2
Step 8: Curveball: fewer and healthier people come
What a strong candidate does: Interviewer: "Pilots elsewhere suggest only 30 percent take part, and those who come are healthier, so only 3 percent are found." Candidate: "The saving minus the cost becomes:"
Net value at 30 percent participation (AED): 1,200,000 × 0.3 × (0.03 × 3,000 - 60) = 10,800,000
Step 9: Benefit ratio in the pessimistic case
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Per person screened, AED 90 of saving against AED 60 of cost."
Benefit to cost ratio, pessimistic case: (0.03 × 3,000) ÷ 60 = 1.5

The recommendation to listen for

At the end, say: "The CEO walks in. What is your recommendation?"

Run the programme, but design it to reach the people least likely to come on their own. First, at 50 percent participation it costs about AED 36 million and saves about AED 72 million over five years, two dirhams for every dirham spent. Second, each case found costs about AED 1,500 to find and saves about AED 3,000 net, so the yield of each screening matters most. Third, even if only 30 percent take part and only 3 percent are found, it still returns about 1.5 times its cost, but the margin is much thinner. Screen where people already are, such as workplaces, pharmacies and community centres, focus invitations on groups with higher risk, and track cases found per 1,000 screened each month.

Risks a strong answer names: People found may not stay on treatment, which cuts the savings; Savings arrive over years while the cost comes first.

Next steps: Pilot workplace screening with three large employers; Agree with clinics how people found are followed up within a month.

Strong versus weak

A strong answer

Built reach, yield, cost per case and net saving per case, compared value with cost, and tested the answer with lower participation.

A weak answer

Said screening is always good for public health and recommended screening everyone, with no cost or yield estimate.

Score the candidate

Score each criterion from 1 to 5. A 2 or a 4 sits between the descriptions.

This case has no exhibit. Score Exhibit reading on how the candidate used the data you gave them: did they pick out the number that matters and say what it means?

Structuring

1: No clear structure, or a memorized framework that does not fit the problem.
3: A sensible structure, but with some overlap, a gap, or no clear priority.
5: A structure built for this problem, with no overlap and no gaps, a stated hypothesis, and a clear first step.

Math

1: Frequent errors, no units, or needed heavy help to finish.
3: Right answers but slow or messy working, or one error caught late.
5: Accurate and clearly narrated, with units, a sense check, and what the number means.

Exhibit reading

1: Read the chart aloud without finding the number that matters.
3: Found the key number but gave only part of the so-what.
5: Pulled the right number quickly and said what it means for the case.

Synthesis

1: Summarized what was done, with no clear answer.
3: Gave an answer, but with weak reasons or no next step.
5: Answer first, then two or three reasons with numbers, the main risk, and next steps.

Communication

1: Hard to follow: long silences, no signposting.
3: Clear most of the time, with some rambling.
5: Calm and concise, signposted each step, and checked in with the interviewer.

Total

0 out of 25

Score all five criteria to see the band and the feedback template.