It has been acknowledged that vaccination is instrumental in preventing diverse serious health issues. Influenza vaccination is an effective tool to prevent influenza development or avoid associated complications. However, people are rather reluctant to comply with vaccination recommendations. Numerous educational interventions to increase this compliance exist, but they tend to have limited success. Technology can help in addressing the issue and motivating people to receive their vaccines (see Table 1). The use of social media is increasing at a high pace, so this platform can be utilized to improve the situation. An intervention that encompassed direct communication with the target population with a clear offer to get vaccinated proved to be effective (Brewer et al., 2018). Adolescents who visit a hospital for other purposes or accompanied their siblings were offered to be vaccinated, and two-thirds of the participants agreed to receive the vaccine. Hence, a direct invitation can have a positive impact on vaccination rates.
Table 1. Empirical Statement.
Reminders from a social media bot
Influenza vaccination rate
Patients aged between 19 and 70 years old
Increase of 30%
Reminders sent through major social media networks and some other platforms by a social media bot increase the influenza vaccination rate by 30%.
Do reminders sent through major social media networks and some other platforms by a social media bot increase the influenza vaccination rate?
The suggested program will be conducted mainly through social media networks such as Facebook, Twitter, What’s Up, and Instagram. It is necessary to create a social media bot who will send a direct invitation to vaccinate oneself or a family member. People who have visited a hospital (but have not had their regular influenza vaccination) will be contacted by the bot through the media mentioned above. The bot can be represented by an account of a young female nurse who is smiling and attractive. The bot will be able to produce a number of simple phrases related to influenza vaccination with the focus on direct reminders and instructions regarding the exact places to be vaccinated.
In addition to this interaction, those who use Google Maps or similar applications will see certain symbols or some tags at the healthcare unit participating in the project where they can be vaccinated. These can be such symbols as a heart, a flower, a star. This can also be a phrase (influenza vaccine, influenza free, and similar) or the bot icon. Since this intervention will require the use of quite advanced technology, IT specialists will be involved in the project. The intervention will not require considerable funding as the messages sent by the bot can be easily developed by the medical staff and are quite similar to rather common text messages sent through mobile devices. The PICOT questions of the present project can be formulated in the following way:
Patients aged between 19 and 70 years old, who have not received their influenza vaccine in an outpatient setting, will receive a set of reminders from the social media bot to increase the rate of influenza vaccine uptake by 30% percent compared to patients who will not be informed within three months.
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that the use of social media has become a daily routine for millions of people irrespective of their backgrounds. Direct communication with patients can have a positive effect on their compliance with vaccination recommendations. The number of social media users is growing exponentially, so it is possible to reach many people within a short period of time. Quick reminders regarding people’s or their close ones’ health can motivate patients to receive their influenza vaccines.
Reference
Brewer, L., Belton, A., Heydinger, E., & Provyn, J. (2018). An innovative approach to increasing vaccination rates in a primary care clinic. Pediatrics, 141(1). Web.
In my research paper, I am investigating racial disparities related to COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. According to multiple pieces of researches, racial minorities were disproportionately affected by the coronavirus due to multiple factors, including structural racism, limited access to health care, multiple comorbidities, poor income, and the unavailability of distant work. At the same time, I am arguing that disparities on the basis of race still exist, and they may be observed in relation to vaccination as well. I aim to prepare an in-depth analysis of this issue, and in my search for reliable literature, I found a peer-reviewed scientific article written by Agarwal et al. (2021) entitled “Socioeconomic privilege and political ideology are associated with racial disparity in COVID-19 vaccination.” As a matter of fact, I found it to be a highly reliable and useful source for my work due to its information relevance and accuracy, the scope of research, and valid findings.
First of all, there are multiple facts that determine the credibility of this article. It was edited, approved, and published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), one of the most-cited and renowned multidisciplinary scientific journals in the world. In addition, the authors of this article are competent and experienced scientists in the field of social sciences who published a considerable number of other articles in peer-reviewed journals. The article was published this year, and all data are from this year as well – these facts demonstrate information actuality as, by this time, almost half of US adult citizens had been fully or partly vaccinated. The scope of this research is another factor that contributes to the article’s credibility. According to the authors, their analysis has covered more than 170.6 million lives from 756 US counties – thus, data of almost 52% of the population were considered (Agarwal et al., 2021). All information related to COVID-19 vaccination was collected from the websites of public health departments.
The usefulness of this article for my research is explained by its authors’ thorough examination of factors that may cause racial disparities in COVID-19 vaccination. They estimated the impact of health care quality and access, education quality and access, economic stability, neighborhood environment, and community and social context on COVID-19 vaccination rates and associated disparities. According to the results of the research, disparities are mostly associated with education, median income, and political ideology, while vaccine hesitancy, home IT rate, and vehicle ownership rate have the smallest impact (Agarwal et al., 2021). In addition, counties “with a greater proportion of Black residents have less disparity in COVID-19 vaccination rates” (Agarwal et al., 2021, p. 3). Finally, political preferences affect disparities as well as according to a February 2021 poll, Republicans had a lower willingness to be vaccinated in comparison with Democrats (Agarwal et al., 2021). Additional factors included individual attitudes to vaccination, racism, and medical mistrust.
In conclusion, I should say that this source may be regarded as highly credible and useful for my research. Its general expediency is determined by the fact that the risk of the coronavirus-related pandemic will still be high in the future. Thus, it is essential to identify factors that contribute to disparities for their minimization. I will definitely use this source to add information concerning the connection between race and these factors.
Reflection Questions
What types of questions did you ask yourself when evaluating the credibility and usefulness of your source? When evaluating my source, I asked myself where this source was published and whether it is scientific or not. In addition, I evaluated how this source corresponded with the topic of my research.
How do you feel this evaluation practice will help you as you continue to move through the research process? As a matter of fact, the research process requires additional sources of information. At the same time, this evaluation helps to elaborate on a particular algorithm that may be applied to other sources to determine their credibility and usefulness.
Lawes-Wickwar et al. “A Rapid Systematic Review of Public Responses to Health Messages Encouraging Vaccination against Infectious Diseases in a Pandemic or Epidemic.” Vaccines, vol. 9, no. 72, 2021, pp. 1-28. ProQuest. Web.
The question as to whether one should take the covid-19 vaccine or not is shown to be influenced by various internal factors, as indicated in this article. The article is imperative in contributing to this debatable question because it discusses the reasons for vaccine use by highlighting the associated advantages. There are segments of the world population who are hesitant about taking the covid-19 vaccine due to psychological factors, which include not being educated, beliefs, and a reduction in risk perception of the pandemic. The reference is a publication of a systematic review study that aimed at presenting the results regarding effective messaging in addressing the hesitancy to the covid-19 vaccine.
Lawes-Wickwar et al. (18-24) have discussed the strategies that can be considered when promoting the acceptance of a covid-19 vaccine, which is safe and approved by the relevant bodies. It is important for healthcare providers to understand the barriers to taking the covid vaccine with the aim of developing clear and factual messages that can help to counter false perceptions about the vaccine. The article upholds the importance of understanding the needs of the targeted population to develop messages that are relevant in personal and social contexts to increase intentions and willingness for the covid-19 vaccine uptake. Lawes-Wickwar et al.’s article presents information that could be used in handling resistance by the public to taking the covid-19 vaccine.
Fitzgerald, Daniel S. “Prescriber Hesitancy on Covid Vaccines: Data Suggests Physicians Just as Hesitant as Patients, but Recent Successes Could Turn the Tide.” Pharmaceutical Executive, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 39. EBSCOhost. n.d. Web.
Fitzgerald (39) also indicates the hesitancy in taking the covid-19 vaccine, but unlike in Lawes-Wickwar et al. ‘s who focused on patients as discussed above, his attention is on physicians. Fitzgerald asserts the essence of having a well-orchestrated public program through which the public gains access to accurate and relevant information on the safety and efficacy of the covid vaccine. The prescriber is an important ambassador for health; hence, if they are not convinced of the benefits of the covid vaccines, it becomes difficult for them to convince the public. The authors advocate for the provision of data to show the efficacy and safety of the covid vaccine. Moreover, they assert the importance of addressing the psychological factors resulting in hesitancy; thereby, taking the covid vaccine becomes important to validate the extant positive phase III data on the effects of the covid vaccine.
The article presents the position of health specialists in the United States regarding the covid vaccine as influenced by the lack of convincing data. However, preliminary vaccine trials have been positive and are the main plausible interventions considering the lack of a curative guideline to treat the covid disease. The article, too, advocates for the development of health promotion messages to motivate physicians in prescribing its use.
Mallapaty, S. Are COVID Vaccination Programmes Working? Scientists Seek First Clues.” Nature, 2021. Web.
Mallapaty has prepared an evidence–based article that seeks to show the ongoing successes in covid vaccine development. The article shows that taking the covid-19 vaccine yields positive results because individuals injected with the COVID vaccine were less likely to test positive for the disease. Nonetheless, uncertainties linked to mutation and the vaccine’s effects at a population level are yet to be explored and validated. The article hypothesis that factors such as coverage of vaccine, viral transmission rate, and prevention of the disease should be weighed before concluding the efficacy of the covid vaccine. Therefore, taking the covid vaccine compared o not taking it is answered while focusing on the advantages of the vaccine. As opposed to not taking the covid vaccine, taking the covid vaccine has not been shown to be harmful and has the potential to work on the coronavirus mutations.
The article, therefore, asserts the importance of providing factual content to educate the public and healthcare workers on the essence of taking the covid vaccine despite challenges imposed by both internal and external factors. Mallapaty presents an issue of interest in that taking the covid vaccine versus not taking the covid vaccine is bound to be affected by the efficacy of the vaccine. Even though there are no clear studies on this, the article indicates that there are ineffective covid vaccines whose efficacy in controlling infection is not guaranteed. Thereby, in such circumstances, whether one should take or not take the covid vaccine becomes a debatable topic influenced by psychological factors.
Prüß, Birgit M. “Current State of the First COVID-19 Vaccines.” Vaccines, vol. 9, no. 30, 2021. EBSCOhost. Web.
The article provides a detailed account of the effects of the different covid vaccines that have been produced in different parts of the world including, Australia, the U.S., the EU, China, and Russia. The vaccines are given in two doses, and they all show improved immunogenicity. As a result, it becomes essential to address the barriers that interfere with uptake and coverage of the vaccine. The positive outcomes of the covid vaccines escalate the importance of developing persuasive messages. Whereas the vaccines are considered safe and have passed through various trials successfully, long term and large scale vaccination will help understand the vaccine better and make improvements where necessary.
The nine vaccines, all at phase III, show a 90% efficacy in preventing covid-19. The safety and efficacy of these vaccines are guaranteed by the approval provided by the various drug regulatory bodies, such as FDA. In the same way that there are regenerated drugs, there is a probability of regenerating the covid vaccine; hence, issues of ineffectiveness, as highlighted by Mallapaty (2021) above, might result. The parting shot of this article is that while vaccines are useful in suppressing the covid disease, it is paramount to increase the population’s willingness to take the covid vaccine. Collating the concerns of the public and using factual information to address their concerns is imperative as vaccine development is presumed to continue with large scale administration at the population level.
Kashmala, Khan, et al. “COVID-19: A Review of Emerging Preventative Vaccines and Treatment Strategies.” Cureus, vol. 12, no. 5, 2020. ProQuest. Web.
Kashmala et al. highlight the essence of the covid vaccine as a strategy to help curb the coronavirus and achieve herd immunity. Despite the fact that managing the virus being adopted over time, and individuals appreciate the behavioral preventive strategies, the use of a vaccine is deemed to increase management of covid disease because there is no cure for this condition yet. The article presents reasons why the public might be hesitant due to virus mutation. Nonetheless, the authors explain the ongoing activities in vaccine development in relation to two categories of viruses to help address the mutation issue. The article is clear about the stages of developing the vaccine. The authors further justify taking the vaccine because the phases of concern have already been done given current vaccines, as indicated by Prüß (1-12), are in the third phase of clinical trials.
The authors place emphasis on their views for supporting the uptake of the covid vaccine by using previous developmental efforts of other viruses to indicate that investigators are borrowing lessons from these past experiences. Moreover, the current therapies are not as effective because they do not accommodate the mutation characteristic but instead target particular viral components or phases of the infective process. The article is clear about prevailing uncertainties but still proposes the use of the covid vaccine as opposed to not taking it.
References
Fitzgerald, Daniel S. “Prescriber Hesitancy on Covid Vaccines: Data Suggests Physicians Just as Hesitant as Patients, but Recent Successes Could Turn the Tide.” Pharmaceutical Executive, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 39. n.d. EBSCOhost. Web.
Kashmala, Khan, et al. “COVID-19: A Review of Emerging Preventative Vaccines and Treatment Strategies.” Cureus, vol. 12, no. 5, 2020. ProQuest. Web.
Lawes-Wickwar et al. “A Rapid Systematic Review of Public Responses to Health Messages Encouraging Vaccination against Infectious Diseases in a Pandemic or Epidemic.” Vaccines, vol. 9, no. 72, 2021, pp. 1-28. ProQuest. Web.
There are many debates and disagreements in every society, especially on the topics concerning controversial issues and problems. The COVID-19 pandemic has been the main topic in media over the past year and a half, and it continues to attract the attention of people. One of the most controversial points related to the pandemic is the introduction of mandatory vaccination. There are generally two sides in the case of mandatory vaccination, one supporting such an initiative and the other opposing it. It is interesting to explore these two views in detail and analyze them from the perspectives of ethical egoism and social contract ethics.
Position for Mandatory Vaccination
The first moral reasoning used in the support of mandatory vaccination implies that such measures will help the entire country reduce the number of deaths from the disease. In other words, introducing mandatory vaccination is morally right because it saves numerous people from becoming victims of the deadly virus. Thus, getting vaccinated is a moral duty of every citizen in the country because it reduces the overall risk of contracting the disease for all of their fellow compatriots.
The second reason in support of mandatory vaccination is the claim that such action is moral because it will expand citizens’ freedoms by removing various government restrictions which prevent people from engaging in different activities. For instance, there are still travel restrictions and limitations, including social distancing for businesses that cannot operate at their full capacity. There is evidence that shutdown policies introduced as a result of the pandemic lead to higher rates of unemployment (Kong & Prinz, 2019). Therefore, it would be morally correct to utilize mandatory vaccination to accelerate the provision of more freedoms to citizens enabling them to do what they want.
Position Against Mandatory Vaccination
There are also arguments against the implementation of mandatory vaccination; one of the states that it is morally correct to let people be free in their choice to engage in certain activities. Essentially, every person must be the only one in charge of what they deem appropriate to inject into their body. Forcing people to inoculate against their will would be immoral and would violate their human rights.
Additionally, another reason why it is ethical to avoid mandatory vaccination is the prevention of various negative health effects such as anaphylaxis reported by those who took COVID-19 vaccines (“Safety of COVID-19 vaccines,” 2021). In other words, there is no guarantee that the vaccines will be safe and effective for everyone and will not cause dangerous side effects. Thus, discarding the option of mandatory vaccination is morally right conduct because it does not imply subjecting people to experimental treatment, which can cause severe health-related effects.
Ethical Egoist Position
Ethical egoism is a popular theoretical framework that is often employed by numerous people, even unconsciously. Ethical egoism implies securing personal interests and deriving the maximum amount of benefit from every situation while neglecting the interests of others (Khansari & Sadeghi, 2020). It would be reasonable to assume that an ethical egoist would oppose mandatory vaccination.
To justify their position, they would say that vaccination should be a personal choice since they would not want to be forced to take the vaccine if they refused to do it voluntarily. For an ethical egoist, there is no conflict between self-loyalty and community because they think only about themselves. I believe that embracing the ethical egoism approach and avoiding mandatory vaccination is the worst course of action since it does not benefit the entire society.
Social Contract Ethicist Position
Social contract ethics involve following universal rules accepted as a norm in a certain society. Essentially, entering a social contract implies abiding by a law that benefits the society in which it is followed (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). As a result, a social contract ethicist would fully support the introduction of mandatory vaccination. Such a person would say that compulsory vaccination would facilitate the return to normal life and would reduce the number of unnecessary deaths due to the virus. Yet, there could be a collision between personal and national obligations if the social contract ethicist would be against vaccination whatsoever. I believe that embracing social contract ethics and implementing mandatory vaccination is the best course of action because it will quickly resolve the pandemic.
Mandatory Vaccination and Professional Code of Ethics of Nurses
If the mandatory vaccination order is introduced, nurses will be the primary actors responsible for conducting inoculation, yet they may face certain moral challenges. According to the ANA code for nurses, nursing professionals must respect the dignity of their clients (Olson & Stokes, 2016). Nevertheless, if a nurse is forced to vaccinate a person who does not want to receive the vaccine, it can lead to an ethical problem. Mandatory vaccination also can provoke a conflict between professional and familial duties if the nurse has to vaccinate a relative who does not want to do it.
Conclusion
The issue of mandatory inoculation is a topical one considering the fact that the current vaccination rates are still low. There can be two approaches to the issue, one supporting it and the one opposing the implementation of mandatory vaccination. Ethical egoists would be more in favor of discarding the option of compulsory vaccination, while social contract ethicists would be willing to make taking the vaccine obligatory.
References
Khansari, M., & Sadeghi, H. (2020). Feasibility study of altruistic ethical responsibility in ethical egoism. Religious Anthropology, 16(42), 127–142. Web.
Olson, L. L., & Stokes, F. (2016). The ANA code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements: Resource for nursing regulation. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 7(2), 9–20. Web.
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Vaccinations against influenza are one of the methods that healthcare providers may use to preventively address complications, particularly in vulnerable groups. The phenomenon of interest (POI) in this research is the effectiveness of influenza vaccinations against hospitalization in school-aged children, which can be studied through the advanced nursing practice (APN) framework. APN direct professionals to focus on providing nursing services through provider-patient interaction and possess a defined yet constantly growing scope in addition to the competencies acquired through appropriate education (Brown, 1998). It is distinct for combining the flexibility and adaptability to continuously arising new knowledge, both practice-based and scholarly. Hence, POI is explored through the lens of the nursing metaparadigm and several nursing theories, such as Orem’s self-care deficit theory, the theory of bureaucratic choices, and complexity theory. Ultimately, this paper explores what factors govern the effectiveness of vaccination administration in school-aged pediatric populations, its relationship with hospitalization rates, and the research on the matter.
Outcome
Nursing Metaparadigm
The nursing metaparadigm originated as an amalgam of several central nursing concepts. Regardless of its iterations, the original four facets remain: person, environment, health, and nursing (Fawcett, 1984). In addition, there are three recurrent themes: governing processes of well-being and sickness, human behavior patterns concerning their environment in daily and extreme situations, and the processes of instilling positive health changes (Fawcett, 1984). The facets of the POI are analyzed through the four concepts above.
Person
The first aspect of the metaparadigm revolves around the concept of a person. More specifically, it concerns people receiving care – in other words, the patients and their socio-economic characteristics (Fawcett, 1984). In the case of influenza vaccine research, the target patient group is school-aged children since they represent the group with the highest risks of infection and spreading of the disease (Kalligeros et al., 2020). This concept of the metaparadigm assists with focusing scholarly research on a specific group, creating potentially more targeted and precise recommendations.
Environment
The second facet of the nursing metaparadigm is related to the environment in which care is provided to the patient. It can be physical, societal, or other, but it ultimately affects the operations and decision-making around a person’s health (Fawcett, 1984). For instance, vaccinations against influenza reduced any hospitalization risk by 53%, but the number varies depending on the age, season, location, and virus variant (Olson et al., 2022, p. 7). The changing environment affects the breadth of research that needs to be conducted and the effectiveness of implemented solutions and may even affect patient compliance.
Health
A third concept that the nursing metaparadigm revolves around is health. The care provided to the patient by the provider addresses specific health problems with the expectation of obtaining a particular state of well-being (Fawcett, 1984). With the chosen POI, the health issues concerning practitioners are the adverse health effects or complications of influenza, such as acute respiratory infections that result in children being admitted to the intensive care unit (Olson et al., 2022). According to Olson et al. (2022), influenza may have severe, life-threatening health implications. These consequences may be reduced if nursing professionals take appropriate preventive measures.
Nursing
Lastly, although sometimes considered tautological, the last concept in the metaparadigm is nursing itself. The process entails the provision of diagnosis and appropriate treatment, whether preventive or responsive, for the health problems (actual or potential) (Fawcett, 1984). For this POI, scholarly research confirming that influenza vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease and subsequent hospitalizations should be conducted before annual vaccination recommendations. Indeed, scholars from the US, Japan, Hong Kong, and Israel confirm that the vaccines are effective in reducing influenza-induced hospitalizations (Chua et al., 2021; Chung et al., 2020; Feldstein et al., 2021; Kalligeros et al., 2020; Segaloff et al., 2019; Shibata et al., 2018). Consistent with the concept requirements, such research can then become the basis for enforcing the recommendations for annual vaccinations in schools (Segaloff et al., 2019). Therefore, the concept of nursing encompasses the research and administration of vaccines.
Nursing Theory
Grand Nursing Theory
The selected grand nursing theory is Orem’s self-care deficit nursing theory. This theory views one’s freedom and agency – capacity to participate in deliberate action – as an underlying premise of self-care. According to Orem et al. (2001), for the patient’s behavior to be considered self-care, it must serve the purpose of fulfilling a self-care requisite or deficit. In other words, patients exercise self-care and care for others when they identify a life-sustaining or function-regulating need and make inputs to meet it. However, if patients fall short of resources, skills, or knowledge, they may not be able to perform self-care. Thus, this concept presupposes the role of nurses as actors who help patients overcome limitations – not only as care providers but also as educators (Orem et al., 2001). To fulfill this task, nurses should possess antecedent knowledge to perform actions appropriate for the cause. Then, they can educate their patients regarding available health options, such as different vaccines and the potential consequences of not getting vaccinated.
Middle Range Theory
The interplay between the concepts of ‘person,’ ‘environment,’ and ‘health’ of the nursing metaparadigm gives rise to one of its themes. One is the theory of bureaucratic choices, which effectively incorporates the environment into an individual’s health choices and healthcare provision. It examines what happens with the fundamental concept of nursing care when viewed through the prism of political, economic, legal, technological, educational, and physical factors (Ray, 1989, 2018). In its essence, the theory of bureaucratic caring assesses the healthcare system’s corporate organizational culture and explores how caring and bureaucracy may coexist productively. Viewing the POI through its prism allows for considering pediatric health, vaccine management, and hospitalization as administrative processes that exist within and are governed by a bureaucratic environment.
The political and economic factors of the theory refer, among others, to the pressure healthcare professionals experience from external sources: for instance, governmental agencies, union activists, or insurance companies (Ray, 1989). These parties may influence the scope and the depth of the research conducted by applying financial and diplomatic pressure on healthcare institutions. As Greer et al. (2018) contend, public health is fundamentally political, and the politicization of healthcare matters dramatically influences the research discourse and the interventions based on the research results. This observation is evidenced by the fact that very few nations have comprehensive vaccination programs, which may be explained by the sustained opinion on the low reliability of the vaccine. For instance, only 38-62% of American children are vaccinated against influenza (Olson et al., 2022, p. 1). Therefore, the current public discussions around vaccine effectiveness may fundamentally affect the POI.
Another aspect of caring that these middle-range theory covers are education. Ray (1989, 2018) contends that communicating and teaching patients, their families, communities, and working organizations about the methods to improve well-being allows for predicting and improving health outcomes. Like Orem’s theory, it emphasizes the role of nurses as public educators and consultants within the healthcare system. According to Olson et al. (2022), improving public understanding of vaccines’ value in protecting against life-threatening influenza is simultaneously urgent and vital. Given that the research on the POI concerns school-aged children, the role of school nurses may be critical as they may educate children and their families on the topic of vaccination.
The Relationship between the Self-Care Deficit and The Bureaucratic Care Theory
A significant overlap may be observed around the person-health interface. Nursing professionals are characterized, among others, by their ability to employ human capacities for healing and well-being (Orem et al., 2001; Smith & Liehr, 2018). However, this ability does not exist in a vacuum – it is externally governed and regulated by the environment, which may impose limitations or support the abilities of both providers and patients to achieve well-being. Patients’ ability to engage in self-care – to protect themselves or their families from influenza and potential hospitalizations – may be limited by the lack of knowledge. If the bureaucratic system is supportive of well-developed educational systems, healthcare providers have a better capacity to reach out and raise awareness.
Complexity Theory
As described above, the interplay between various factors and system requirements around healthcare is becoming increasingly more complex. As Plsek and Greenhalgh (2001) postulate, the modern healthcare system is complex, dynamic, and adaptive: “a collection of individual agents with freedom to act in ways that are not always totally predictable, and whose actions are interconnected so that one agent’s actions changes the context for other agents” (p. 625). Complexity science thus studies the patterns that emerge from these interconnected, unpredictable interactions. Vaccine effectiveness research is inherently complex and adaptive, focusing on the environmental aspect. One of the sources of complexity in the effectiveness of influenza vaccines lies in natural, unpredictable factors, such as closely matched strains that circulate in the population at a given moment (Chen et al., 2020). According to Olson et al., an influenza shot causes a 47% reduction in severe disease against viruses of a different variant and 78% against viruses of the same variant as the vaccine (Olson et al., 2022, p. 6). Additionally, there are previously discussed ‘bureaucratic’ factors (internalized rules and key actors), such as politics, education, or personal factors.
A complex adaptive system (CAS) in the POI is, therefore, the system built around the responsiveness to the influenza virus. According to the CAS principles, these systems do not have rigid boundaries as they rely on interdisciplinary collaboration and co-evolve with others. Further, they are embedded within larger systems (such as pediatric healthcare), and they have unpredictable elements (viruses) (Olsson et al., 2020). Lastly, they function in a larger adaptation pattern: accurately predicting and identifying seasonal strains, developing appropriate annual measures, and distributing vaccine formulation recommendations (Chen et al., 2020). Overall, it can be confidently stated that the process of understanding and improving influenza vaccine effectiveness functions as a CAS.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the effectiveness of influenza vaccinations against hospitalization in school-aged children is a complex topic governed by several processes. While vaccines reduce hospitalization rates across the board, their effectiveness varies depending on the seasonal virus composition, introducing the impact on the environment. Moreover, the bureaucratic choices theory highlights other aspects of the environment, such as politics and the economy. The nursing metaparadigm helps identify the patient population and the actions required to prove the effectiveness of the vaccinations and introduce them as annual measures. The process of developing and administering vaccinations is directed by patients’ willingness to avoid severe health consequences and hospitalization and providers’ desire to help patients achieve this goal. Further, both grand nursing and middle-range theories highlight the role of nurses as educators about the benefits of influenza vaccines in the efforts to decrease hospitalizations.
References
Brown, S. J. (1998). A framework for advanced practice nursing.Journal of Professional Nursing: Official Journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 14(3), 157–164. Web.
Feldstein, L. R., Ogokeh, C., Rha, B., Weinberg, G. A., Staat, M. A., Selvarangan, R., Halasa, N. B., Englund, J. A., Boom, J. A., Azimi, P. H., Szilagyi, P. G., McNeal, M., Harrison, C. J., Williams, J. V., Klein, E. J., Sahni, L. C., Singer, M. N., Lively, J. Y., Payne, D. C., … Campbell, A. P. (2021). Vaccine effectiveness against influenza hospitalization among children in the United States, 2015-2016.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, 10(2), 75–82. Web.
Olson, S. M., Newhams, M. M., Halasa, N. B., Feldstein, L. R., Novak, T., Weiss, S. L., Coates, B. M., Schuster, J. E., Schwarz, A. J., Maddux, A. B., Hall, M. W., Nofziger, R. A., Flori, H. R., Gertz, S. J., Kong, M., Sanders, R. C., Jr, Irby, K., Hume, J. R., & Cullimore, M. L. (2022). Vaccine effectiveness against life-threatening influenza illness in US children.Clinical Infectious Diseases, 931, 1–9. Web.
Ray, M. A. (2018). Theory of bureaucratic caring. In M. J. Smith & P. R. Liehr (Eds.), Middle range theory for nursing (4th ed., pp. 107–118). Springer Publishing Company.
Vaccination remains the most effective way to prevent influenza infection, although the effectiveness of the vaccine varies from year to year. Children and the elderly have the highest risk of influenza-related complications requiring hospitalization compared to other age groups. Vaccination is a key strategy for influenza prevention and control. Influenza vaccination is often recommended for children because of 1) the high burden of influenza among children and 2) the role of children in the transmission of the influenza virus, facilitated by their social contacts. Chua et al., article assesses the efficacy of influenza vaccine (VE) against influenza-associated hospitalization in children in different age groups, type/ influenza subtype, and the time period in each season. Thus, the effectiveness of influenza vaccination against the hospitalization of school-age children is considered.
Influenza infection remains a severe health burden for both the adult and pediatric populations. According to the World Health Organization, there are approximately 1 billion cases, of which 3 to 5 million are severe, resulting in 290,000–650,000 influenza-related respiratory deaths annually (Rolfes et al., 2019). Children often face the highest risk of contracting influenza compared to other age groups. At the same time, they also play a critical role in the introduction and spread of the influenza virus in households and communities. Since 2010, the CDC estimates that flu-related hospital admissions among children have ranged from 7,000 to 26,000 (Kalligeros et al., 2020). Vaccination remains the most effective method of preventing influenza infection. However, effectiveness may vary seasonally due to the antigenic variability of seasonal influenza viruses and the degree of concordance between influenza vaccine strains and circulating strains. In this regard, the authors conducted a detailed analysis and evaluation of the influenza vaccine.
Although vaccination is usually targeted at a younger population for epidemiological and practical reasons, vaccination in most age groups, including adults, is considered very cost-effective. In this regard, the relevance of the study by Chua et al. (2021). The study is further supported by the fact that children are at greater risk of infection. Given the constant contact of children with other peers, the risk of spreading the disease in children of school and preschool age increases. Influenza vaccine research is currently underway in many countries around the world to evaluate more than just the effectiveness of vaccination in preventing influenza infections (Lofgren et al., 2022). It is important to determine the economic feasibility of seasonal influenza vaccination as well. The conceptual analysis will allow determining the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine.
The data was collected from public hospitals in Hong Kong between 2010 and 2020. This study presents opportunities for broader research, for example, to trace the relationship between social contact and the spread of the virus in school-age children. Interestingly, the claimed analysis can be used to further track the development of immunity to the disease in children after influenza vaccination. In addition, the study itself presents broader results than just the effect of the vaccine. The study presents the vaccination coverage in the control group, the seasons of decline and rise in the incidence of influenza among children, and the time period in each season (Chua et al., 2021). When analyzing the data of other scientists, the peak incidence of influenza falls in the period from the 4th to the 9th epidemiological weeks (Falcón-Lezama et al., 2020). However, among the school-age population, influenza transmission has a longer duration (started earlier and ended later) (Falcón-Lezama et al., 2020). Studies in children confirm that vaccination reduces the incidence and burden of seasonal influenza, highlighting the importance of targeting this group in national immunization policies (Tillard et al., 2022). Thus, by considering the effectiveness of vaccination, it is possible to expand the analysis concept and explore related areas.
The study is part of the concept of system-oriented practice, the most important in relation to the study of performance. Assessments must be both valid and effective so that residents receive appropriate and timely feedback so that corrective actions can be taken when needed (Natesan et al., 2018). The goals of the analysis were determined to address the question posed by Chua et al. (2021). In defining the attributes, the needs of the system were taken into account, which was associated with the solution to the problem of increased incidence of influenza among children. The prior events of the article were an increase in hospital admissions for children in Hong Kong (Chua et al., 2021). The analysis makes it possible to identify the consistency of influenza vaccination in order to assess its effectiveness of this among school-age children. Research plays a significant role in the need for balance between patient and system needs (Natesan et al., 2018). The researchers are also looking at the impact of vaccination on reducing hospitalizations, that is, acting to protect health and improve the system.
Influenza seasons in Hong Kong were lengthening, and influenza-related hospitalizations occurred almost every month during the study period. Influenza vaccination has effectively prevented influenza-related hospitalizations in children of all ages. Thus, Chua et al. (2021) have a significant impact on the study of the effectiveness of influenza vaccination in schoolchildren. Hong Kong’s childhood flu vaccination program has prevented flu-related hospitalizations, especially among young children. It allows to talk about the increase in immunity to the disease, declared as the main advantage of the vaccine (Benjamin-Chung et al., 2020). The described study provides data for ten years of the fight against the disease. Children are more likely to transmit the influenza virus to people of the same age and different age groups due to their social mixing patterns. Therefore, they are an important target group in the fight against influenza.
Unlike many other vaccine-controlled viral infections, influenza is still an unresolved problem. However, vaccination is recognized as the most effective way to prevent influenza infection. Influenza vaccination protects against any pediatric hospitalization associated with influenza, not only in adults but also in school-age children. Research findings support the importance of a complete strategy and highlight the significant protection the flu vaccine provides for children, an age group at high risk of influenza-related complications such as hospitalization. A common theme in performance reviews is that schoolchildren remain particularly vulnerable to influenza, with higher hospitalization rates and complications. Recent data on the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccines confirm that this is a productive strategy for reducing the disease burden in school-aged children.
Rolfes, M. A., Flannery, B., Chung, J. R., O’Halloran, A., Garg, S., Belongia, E. A., Gaglani, M., Zimmerman, R. K., Jackson, M. L., Monto, A. S., Alden, N. B., Anderson, E., Bennett, N. M., Billing, L., Eckel, S., Kirley, P. D., Lynfield, R., Monroe, M. L., Spencer, M., … Hung, M.-C. (2019). Effects of influenza vaccination in the United States during the 2017–2018 influenza season.Clinical Infectious Diseases, 69(11), 1845–1853. Web.
Herd immunity refers to a situation when the majority of a community develops immunity against infectious diseases. Herd immunity can offer some amount of protection even to those who have not received a vaccination due to the decreased likelihood of the disease spreading. It is attained when 70% to 90% of a population is immune (McDermott, 2021). The herd immunity threshold might be as low as 40%, depending on the severity of the infection. A community can develop herd immunity through vaccination and from previous infections. Vaccination is regarded as the best way to develop this kind of immunity as it helps break the chain of infection (McDermott, 2021). Immunity developed from a previous infection is obtained when a large fraction of a community has contracted a contagious illness, recovered from it, and then produced antibodies to the disease-causing pathogen.
Vaccination Related Immunity
Upon vaccination, a person develops an acquired type of immunity. This refers to a form of immunity that arises after a person acquires antibodies from another source or when their immune system reacts to a foreign material or microorganism. Acquired immunity can be adaptive or passive (McDermott, 2021). Adaptive immunity results after having a microorganism infection or receiving a vaccination against one. An immunological response is produced by the body, which may help stop further infection by the bacterium. When a person gets antibodies against a disease or toxin rather than producing them on their own, this is known as passive immunity.
Effects of Vaccination on Individuals
Immunizations shield people from diseases and stop them from infecting others. Throughout the years, epidemics of once-common infectious illnesses like measles, mumps, and whooping cough have been stopped by vaccinations (Harrison & Wu, 2020). To avoid infections, vaccinations safely use a small amount of that bacteria or virus in weakened or destroyed form or fragments of lab-made proteins that mimic the viruses. An individual is injected with a disease that has been weakened or a portion of it during vaccination (Rodrigues & Plotkin, 2020). This triggers the body’s immune response, which either causes it to develop antibodies to that specific disease or to instigate other processes that boost immunity. The immune system will then be ready to combat the infection if a person is ever exposed to the real disease-causing bacteria again.
Effects of Vaccination on the Community
The chance of diseases spreading among other community members is decreased through vaccination, which also protects those nearby who are susceptible to the diseases. An infectious disease is less likely to spread when a sufficient number of persons in a population are immune to it (Rodrigues & Plotkin, 2020). In this way, vaccinations shield those who are susceptible to illness. These include newborns, young children, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those who are medically unable to receive vaccinations (Rodrigues & Plotkin, 2020). The social, psychological, and financial costs of sickness are lessened as a result of immunization programs, which also relieve pressure on the healthcare and social care systems and allow people to pursue constructive endeavors like education and employment.
Vaccination Trends
With 25 million children losing out on life-saving immunizations in 2021, 2 million more than in 2020, and 6 million more than in 2019, global vaccination rates are further declining. Its lowest level since 2008, global coverage of the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP3) decreased from 86% in 2019 to 81 % in 2021 (Giubilini, 2021). In addition, 112 countries have witnessed flat or declining DTP3 coverage since 2019, with 62 of those countries experiencing declines of at least five percentage points, according to the most recent WHO/UNICEF estimates of national immunization coverage (WUENIC). More than 60% of those children live in 10 nations (India, Nigeria, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Philippines, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil, Pakistan, Angola, and Myanmar), 25 million children were unvaccinated or under-vaccinated in 2021, and 18 million children received zero doses of vaccines, an increase of 5 million from 2019 (Giubilini, 2021).
Reasons for Decline
The observed decline was caused by several factors, including an increase in the number of children living in unstable and conflict-ridden environments, an increase in misinformation, and COVID-19-related problems like service and supply chain interruptions, resource diverting to response efforts, and containment measures that restricted access to and availability of immunization services.
Vaccination Myths
Vaccines can make people sick, a myth that is usually associated with the occurrence of mild side effects such as a low-grade fever that disappears rapidly or pain at the injection site. According to WHO, immunizations seldom have major side effects, and they are so uncommon that it is impossible to determine statistically how likely they are. A large group of people also believe that vaccines contain toxic ingredients. However, regarding toxicity, the dosage is crucial, as in excessive doses, every substance can be harmful (Chavda et al., 2022). Although formaldehyde and aluminum are present in some vaccines in tiny concentrations, these substances are not toxic or hazardous. Some flu vaccines contain gelatin and egg proteins, which, in extremely rare circumstances, can result in allergic responses in people who have a history of having severe allergies to eggs or gelatin.
Although it might be useful to learn more about one’s health on the internet, this can be a source of false information. Vaccines are allegedly being used to microchip people, so they may be monitored or controlled via 5G cell phone towers (Chavda et al., 2022). This is not only untrue but also impractical. Evidence reveals that those wishing to promote misinformation and misunderstanding among Americans spread this conspiracy notion.
An individual does not need to get immunized if everyone around them is immune. Getting vaccinated not only protects an individual but also the community as a whole (Chavda et al., 2022). The majority of diseases that can be prevented by vaccination spread from person to person. When one individual in a group of people contracts the illness, it can quickly spread to more. A disease has less of a possibility of spreading the more people who receive vaccinations.
Disease Statistics for Conditions Prevented with Vaccination
Around the world, infectious diseases are the main cause of morbidity and mortality. Around 679 million children under the age of five lived in the entire world as of 2018 (Frenkel, 2021). 5.3 million of these children are predicted to have died in 2018 from all causes, with 700,000 of those deaths attributed to infectious diseases that can be prevented by vaccination; 99% of these children were from low- and middle-income nations (Frenkel, 2021). In order of prevalence, the infectious diseases caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, Rotavirus, Bordetella pertussis, measles virus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and influenza virus are those that continue to be major causes of mortality and for which vaccines have been shown to provide proven preventive success.
Pediatric Vaccination Schedule/s
The recommended schedule of immunization for children varies based on the locality, the child’s health, the type of vaccines, and the available vaccines. Generally, the first dose of the Hepatitis B vaccine is given at birth, followed by a second dose after 1 to 2 months (Wodi et al., 2022). At two months and four months, a child is given Diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP), Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (Hib), inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), and the Rotavirus vaccine (RV). At six months, the child is vaccinated with DTaP, Hib, and RV (the third dose, depending on the brand of vaccine used in previous immunizations and PCV.
Between 12–15 months, the child is given Hib, MMR (Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, PCV, and Varicella (chickenpox). 12–23 months old are given the Hepatitis A vaccine, and at 15–18 months, the child is given the DTaP vaccine. At 4–6 years, DTaP, MMR, IPV, and Varicella are given. 11–12 years old are given the Human papillomavirus vaccine, which is recommended for both girls and boys (Wodi et al., 2022). MenACWY protects against meningococcal bacteria types A, C, W, and Y. Ages 16-18 years are given the MenB vaccine, which protects against meningococcal bacterium type B.
Legal, Ethical, and Cultural Issues in Vaccination
The creation and application of vaccinations are fraught with ethical dilemmas. The development and testing of vaccines, informed consent regarding the advantages and hazards of vaccination, and the equitable distribution of vaccines are some of these concerns. Due to the conflicting cultural perspectives and value systems, the public has a variety of strong attitudes about vaccination (Harrison & Wu, 2020). Different religious perspectives and vaccine objections, as well as skepticism and mistrust of vaccines across various U.S. and international cultures and communities, all contribute to several important cultural perspectives on vaccination.
References
Chavda, V. P., Chen, Y., Dave, J., Chen, Z.-S., Chauhan, S. C., Yallapu, M. M., Uversky, V. N., Bezbaruah, R., Patel, S., & Apostolopoulos, V. (2022). COVID-19 and vaccination: myths vs science. Expert Review of Vaccines, 1–18. Web.
Childhood vaccines or immunizations have been in existence for many years. They were introduced to help protect children against various life-threatening diseases such as polio, tetanus, and diphtheria. Similarly, these types of vaccines protect other children by eliminating or reducing the severity of the conditions that spread from child to child. As a public tool against dangerous disease, childhood vaccines such as Hepatitis A and Measles have been described by many as an effective weapon against infectious illness.
It is important to note the vaccine program works by protecting at-risk population provided the national coverage is sufficiently high. It has the ability to protect those who were previously not vaccinated due to medical reasons. Currently, childhood vaccinations prevent approximately 2-3 milliondeaths every year. Despite this successful story, myths such as MMR being the cause of autism continue to flourish as a result of scientific evidence losing grip on alternative truth perpetrated through social media.
For many years scholars have been trying to understand how myths are created, diffused and their overall impact on humans. However, little research has been carried out to determine how the cause-effect relationship of diseases is shaped by social media. This article seeks to give a deeper understanding of how social media facilitate the circulation of myths. The first point to note is that myths are created through direct misinterpretation of scientific observations. Secondly, the cutting edge scientific evidence only lasts for a short period of time–they get lost through multiple interpretations, thus becoming myths of today. Thirdly, people easily trust the version of truth shared by celebrities than that of the news source. Fourthly, some old myths have persisted for many years due to social media. More importantly, cause-effect myth about MMR vaccines has been spread far and wide with the help of social media.
The Origin of Vaccination Myths
Scholars agree that the origin of vaccination myths started after successful eradication of smallpox. According to Boylston (352), myths develop through a simple observation which signals multiple interpretations. For instance, the process of developing smallpox vaccination started with a simple observation made by a doctor while inoculating a group of farmers against smallpox. Boylston noted that the doctor never acknowledged the importance of his discovery and as such he decided to share the information with his friends. Boylston (356) maintains that Doctor Fewster’s conversation with his colleagues is what set in motion the process that led to the development of small pox and the eventual eradication of the virus. As a matter of fact, most stories of vaccination argues that Edward Jenner became aware of the benefits of cowpox from a conversation with a milkmaid “who claimed that she was immune to smallpox because she had cowpox” (Boylston (356). This story is later evolved into what is known as milkmaid myth. However, the truth is that the process that led to eradication of smallpox started with a simple clinical observation which was later communicated to a medical community.
Furthermore, the cause-effect myth described above started in the late 1990s. It started after Andrew Wakefield published an article in The Lancet claiming that he had finally found the explanation for autism in the measles virus. Wakefield hypothesized that the measles virus “the measles virus had triggered inflammatory lesions in the colon, disrupting the permeability of the colon, thus causing autism” (Davidson 127).
In fact, all the eight autistic children involved in the experiment exhibited hypothesized lesions, driving to claim that measles vaccine virus caused autism. In a different study, the authors claimed that vaccines for mumps, measles, and rubella (MMR) follow the pattern of a cause-effect myth. The misinterpretation comes in from claims that if “A follows B, then A becomes the cause of B” (Davidson 128). The myth states that the developmental condition such as autism starts manifesting from the moment MMR vaccine is administered. Vaccine in essence viewed as the cause while the disease such as autism is the effect. The simplicity of this explanation makes it easier for people to avoid MRR vaccination – this ensures they do not experience the side effects associated with the vaccine.
The Role of Social Media
Myths spread fast on social media because platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are free and accessible to many. Most importantly, these platforms are not vetted with a news source. According to Jervelund (167), myths on social media spread through misinformation and disinformation. The former is one that inadvertently draws conclusions based on incomplete facts while the latter is a more of a deliberate spread of falsehood. Public figures and social media have been cited extensively as the main perpetrators of myths. On one hand, public figures tend to use their fame to speak about topics and subjects despite not being experts.
On the other hand, social media influencers spread and amplify information through social media megaphone. The main reason why myths spread fast through social media is that the owners of these platforms struggle with misinformation and disinformation – they are not sure which approach to take in an effort to address the problem. Social media remains to be one of the main sources of fake news (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Sources of Fake News (Thompson).
Since myths offer a simpler explanation rather than complex issue, people are more likely to follow it at the expense of truth. For instance, parents who genuinely struggle with deciding whether or not to take their kids for MRR vaccination will fall for any explanation, especially from a celebrity or any other public figure. Xia and Jiming’s study further highlighted some of the issues that parents consider in making vaccine-related decisions. These issues range from perceived benefits and risks of vaccination, possible adverse effects of immunizations and financial costs associated with the vaccine (CNN News 18).
Such parents are more likely to change their mind if they come across an explanation advising against a particular vaccination – especially one made by an influential person. For example, an explanation such as toddlers have a weak immune system and easily get overstimulated by the vaccine, will most likely dissuade parents. In fact, this is how many people still support Andrew Wakefield findings despite Lancet completely retracting the paper and subsequently finding Wakefield and others guilty of ethical violation and scientific misinterpretation.
In line with above, people still believe Wakefield’s findings are someone true. As a matter of fact, all the re-futing scientific evidence were eventually replaced by alternative truth perpetrated through social media. Unlike scientific evidence which get published in selective Journals, anti-vaccination networks on the web are easily accessible by the people. This expansion is attributed largely to the influence of celebrates who have embraced the cause and effect debates.
Social media can be used by celebrities to create narrative that vaccines are not worth the risk especially since they are uncommon. In other words, individual’s vaccination decisions depend largely on prior knowledge about the disease and associated costs. According to statistics “eight in ten Internet users in the U.S search for health information online and 74% of these people use social media” (Jervelund (167). This means a high percentage people are likely to read believe the information on social media platforms.
Figure 2. Social Media Usage (Chugh, Robert and Stephanie 980).
Several studies have been undertaken to find out how people decide what information to trust on social media. Xia and Jiming’s (201) findings revealed that “people are more likely to trust and engage with a story on social media if it is shared by a public figure they trust”. From this, one can argue that public figures sharing a story have a huge impact than the news source reporting it. In fact, some people will even re-share the story on their social platforms even if they do not trust public figure.
Conclusion
Myths surrounding vaccinations are easily followed because they are simple and are believed to provide an alternative truth about an issue. As evidenced above, vaccinations myths occur as a result of misinterpretation of facts. For instance, there are many versions of the cowpox story which makes it difficult to identify the truth. However, this article emphasizes that the vaccinia virus fused in the final smallpox eradication program was not identified in all the cowpox cases. Similarly, the widely cited version of the milkmaid story is just but a myth.
Chirico, Francesco. “Vaccinations and media: An on-going challenge for policy makers.” J Health Soc Sci, vol. 2, no. 1, 2017, pp. 9-18. Web.
Chugh, Ritesh, Robert Grose, and Stephanie A. Macht. “Social Media Usage by Higher Education Academics: A Scoping Review of the Literature.” Education and Information Technologies vol. 26, no. 1, 2021, pp. 980-99. Web.
Vaccination is one of the most crucial developments in the history of humankind. From the early spreads of plague and cholera to more recent measles, smallpox, and coronavirus, the diseases have resulted in hundreds of pandemics, killing millions of lives and devastating communities and economies. However, vaccines have played a crucial part in preventing and eradicating diseases, such as smallpox or influenza. Vaccination has been the subject of many controversies. A small cohort of vaccinated individuals became victims of physical disabilities, mental disorders, and even deaths because of the vaccines.
The documentary The Vaccine War is informative and provocative (Palfreman & McMahon, 2010). The main topic is the public’s opinion about the vaccines, the ingredients of which they assumed to be the sole cause of unwanted regression, such as autism and deafness, and the facts stated by medical experts. Vaccine skepticism has been linked to lower trust in the government and healthcare professionals (Iwasaki & Omer, 2020, p. 295). Nevertheless, scientists proved several times that vaccines do not cause adverse effects. I believe that science does not lie and that some people are inherently more sensitive to neutral ingredients, which can negatively affect them.
It is important to effectively publicize all necessary information about the vaccines. Resources such as social media, website posts, and ads can be a very efficient approach to reaching a significant number of people. Flyers, brochures, seminars in communities, and advisory sessions about vaccines can effectively dispel patients’ misconceptions about vaccination and its efficacy, thus making people more liable to get vaccinated. A vaccine’s success depends on clinical and scientific preparedness and public readiness (Hudson & Montelpare, 2021, p. 1). Therefore, getting people to know everything they need about vaccines is essential.
State laws governing school-entry vaccine mandates and the permitted exemptions (medical and non-medical) from those mandates have come under scrutiny as vaccine hesitancy has increased and vaccine-preventable diseases have spread (Buttenheim et al., 2020, p. 2620). There is a wide range in the types of exemptions offered in each state, and exemption rates are typically lower in states with stricter or onerous exemption requirements. California has passed a vaccine exemption for personal, medical, and religious beliefs.
References
Buttenheim, A. M., Joyce, C. M., Ibarra, J., Agas, J., Feemster, K., Handy, L. K., Amin, A. B., & Omer, S. B. (2020). Vaccine exemption requirements and parental vaccine attitudes: An online experiment. Vaccine, 38(11), 2620-2625.
Hudson, A., & Montelpare, W. (2021a). Predictors of vaccine hesitancy: Implications for COVID-19 public health messaging. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 1–14.
Iwasaki, A., & Omer, S. (2020). Why and how vaccines work. CellPress, 290–295.
Palfreman, J. & McMahon, K. (2010). The Vaccine War [Film]. FRONTLINE, Palfreman Film Group, Kate McMahon Productions, LLC. Web.
Evidence-based projects play an integral role in the healthcare system because it promotes the delivery of quality care to patients. One of the practices that is greatly affected by scientific evidence is children’s vaccination. Its effectiveness depends on the evidence provided to prove that it protects children from diseases. However, one of the issues in this practice is vaccine hesitancy, where parents delay or refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated. This has adversely affected the healthcare system since the quality of health of an individual starts at infancy stage.
Evidence-based Projects (EBP)
Master’s-prepared nurses engaging in evidence-based projects experience the following benefits. Firstly, EBP enables nurses to make informed decisions during care. They conduct extensive research before making any decision. Secondly, EBP allows nurses to offer care that meet the needs of patients. With evidence-informed projects, the nurses are equipped with relevant skills to provide quality care. Thirdly, EBP gives nurses the ability to make practice current and relevant. They integrate technology during research to improve their practice. Fourthly, nurses EBP to effectively engage relevant stakeholders such as patients during care (Dang & Dearholt, 2018).
Conceptual Model: Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model is a problem-solving approach to daily medical decision-making. The approach is frequently supported by user-friendly tools designed to guide a group or individual usage. The concept was created to especially satisfy the pressing needs of the modern practicing nurse officer, and it employs a three-step procedure known as PET, which stands for practice, evidence, and translation, as shown in the figure above (Dang & Dearholt, 2018). The model’s major purpose is to ensure that the most current study findings, as well as best practices, are quickly and appropriately integrated into daily patient care.
The model depends on practice, evidence, and translation to develop evidence-based projects. In practice, the activities involve forming an inter-professional team, creating EBP questions, and determining responsibility for leadership and arranging meetings. In the area of evidence, the tasks include aspects such as conducting internal and external searches for evidence, analyzing the quality of evidence, and creating suggestions for evidence synthesis. For translation, the activities include identifying the efficiency of suggestions, developing an action plan, and identifying outcomes (Dang & Dearholt, 2018).
Children Vaccination
Children’s vaccination is an important concept in the public due to its relevance to disease prevention among children. Infants are unable to effectively fight life-threatening illnesses due to weak immunity. As a result, child immunization is one of the most applied defense mechanisms for children. It offers immunity prior to exposure to serious illnesses (Kaufman et al., 2018). For example, it protects children from life-threatening illnesses such as measles, tetanus, polio, and many more. Therefore, children’s immunization is among the leading disease prevention approaches used to protect children.
Children’s vaccination is a process used in healthcare to improve the health of children and has been practiced for a long. It is perceived as an important process in the healthcare system because it allows the to achieve the expected health outcome of the community (Kaufman et al., 2018). To make it effective, the process relies on scientific information or evidence to achieve the intended purpose. Healthcare researchers have focused on research to remove any errors in children’s vaccination.
The Importance of Children’s Vaccination to NP Practice
Children’s vaccination plays an integral role in NP practice. The main role of NP is to offer primary care services to patients from infants to adulthood. Children’s vaccination helps NP practice achieve its key mandate. Firstly, it promotes optimal health among children through disease prevention. It helps NP in making sure that children’s health and well-being is protected. Secondly, it assists NP practice in getting rid of serious illnesses that might affect the health of children. Thirdly, the vaccination of children enables the NP to achieve the provision of quality healthcare services (Kaufman et al., 2018).
Concerns and Recommendation For Change
The main issue affecting the vaccination of children is vaccine hesitancy. It is defined as a state where parents delay or completely refuse to take their children for immunization despite the availability of the vaccine (Majid & Ahmad, 2020). In most cases, parents may have a feeling that the vaccine is a threat to their children’s health. However, this has ended up exposing some children to serious illnesses. To solve this issue, it is important to create awareness of the benefits of child immunization. Government officials and health providers should consider understanding the reason for hesitancy, counter the negative beliefs against vaccines, and enhance vaccine literacy,
Factors Influencing Change
There are internal and external factors that affect the adoption of the change. One of the internal factors is the lack of knowledge to handle the issue of vaccine hesitancy among some parents. Without adequate skills, healthcare providers and relevant parties have failed to end the issue. The other internal factor is the fact that health providers are unwilling to undertake the mandate. For the external environment, one of the factors is the religious beliefs that shape the values and practices of individuals and groups. Another external factor is the absence of government support to eliminate the problem.
NONPF Competencies
Some of the NONPF competencies that relate to children’s vaccination are technology and information literacy, leadership, and the healthcare delivery system. Firstly, technology and information literacy assist in the production and use of vaccines that enhance the health of children. Health providers use appropriate technical and scientific health information to produce vaccines. Secondly, healthcare delivery system competency ensures that healthcare providers offer health services that address the needs of culturally diverse populations. For example, it ensures that children’s vaccine production protects the beliefs of different cultures. Leadership determines the success or failure of children’s vaccination (Anthamatten et al., 2020).
Scientific foundation, quality, and policy are among the NONPF Competencies that relate to childhood vaccination. The scientific foundation ensures that vaccine production for children is founded on scientific knowledge. It involves the integration of knowledge from science into nursing practice. The other competency that has a relationship with children’s vaccines is policy. It promotes access, cost and delivery of children’s vaccines. For example, government policies on vaccines determine the cost of the vaccine and whether it is mandatory or not. Quality relates to children’s vaccines as it ensures that immunization promotes health and eliminates health risks (Anthamatten et al., 2020).
Conclusion
Children’s vaccination is a crucial aspect of disease prevention among children carried out by nursing practitioners. It enables healthcare providers to protect children from serious illnesses. However, the primary issue in this vaccination is vaccine hesitancy from parents. To solve this problem, there is a need for collaboration between healthcare providers, government, and other agencies in creating awareness through campaigns to enhance vaccine literacy. This is an indication that the success of this children’s vaccination is the integration of various NONPF Competencies.
References
Anthamatten, A., Pfieffer, M. L., Richmond, A., & Glassford, M. (2020). Exploring the utility of entrustable professional activities as a framework to enhance nurse practitioner education. Nurse Educator, 45(2), 83-87.
Dang, D., & Dearholt, S. (2018). Supplemental materials for Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Model and Guidelines (3rd ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.
Kaufman, J., Ryan, R., Walsh, L., Horey, D., Leask, J., Robinson, P., & Hill, S. (2018). Face‐to‐face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (5).
Majid, U., & Ahmad, M. (2020). The factors that promote vaccine hesitancy, rejection, or delay in parents. Qualitative Health Research, 30(11), 1762-1776.
