Category: Vaccination

Introduction

Vaccination remains one of the most controversial public health issues in contemporary medical experimental science due to effectiveness and safety concerns. While governments attempt to push for scientific prevention methods for infectious diseases, vaccines emerge as a viable option for preventing and controlling infections. However, as much as vaccines prevent diseases, an ever-going debate seems to consolidate and gather various fears and concerns about contemporary medicine and man’s future regarding medical experimentation (Hausman, 2019).

Vaccination, having stemmed from medical experiments, faces differing views from the public, most of whom believe in myths and misconceptions about immunization. Generally, vaccination raises the question of the role of illness and disease in our lives and how history and human motivations can interfere with trust in governments and scientific establishments. Contrary to the commonly perceived dangers of vaccinations, such as the use of Thimerosal and potential side effects, vaccination provides overwhelming benefits such as disease prevention and mitigation of disease severity and disease control through herd immunity.

Vaccine Use of Thimerosal

Vaccination is necessary for preventing, controlling, and eradicating children’s infectious diseases. In achieving this outcome, countries have been impacted by using a concentrated Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) schedule in expectant mothers and children vaccines. Changes in metabolism during early development have been demonstrated to be a risk factor for ethylmercury (EtHg) impacts on infant neurodevelopment. Similarly, Thimerosal exposure significantly sensitizes susceptible persons to permanent contact dermatitis. Conversely, Thimerosal-free vaccines indicate a substantial decline in contact with dermatitis (Dorea, 2017). Vaccine skeptics point to the dangers of vaccination by highlighting the use of Thimerosal, an adjuvant used in vaccines to be a toxicological risk.

Besides, Thimerosal is an active compound that can act on neurological and immunological systems of young children across all levels and gets utilized in pediatric vaccines. However, research indicates that TVCs in young children lead to neurodevelopmental issues, including autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In addition to that, TVCs have been linked to increased risks with several conditions, including language delay, hyperactivity disorder, attention deficits, childhood obesity, emotional disturbance, premature puberty, speech disorder, and developmental delay (Dorea, 2017). These findings have galvanized skeptics in exposing the use of Thimerosal in vaccines as a significant threat to human existence while also pointing out the potential side effects of vaccinations.

Side Effects and Adverse Events

Moreover, skeptics argue that vaccines lead to side effects that endanger human health and well-being. The CDC has provided information indicating that no vaccine is safe even though they are safe and effective. Vaccines might lead to mild side effects such as slight fever, local reaction, and various systemic symptoms as part of the normal immunological response (CDC, 2021). For example, systemic symptoms are observed in 5-15% of the measles mumps or rubella vaccine recipients 5-12 days after vaccination (CDC, 2021). These are attributed to childhood background events. However, vaccine skeptics tend to use side effects to indicate harmful effects of the vaccination process.

Also, numerous criticisms exist on the adverse reactions caused by vaccines, such as anaphylaxis, seizures, osteitis, persistent crying, hypersensitivity, febrile seizure, and encephalitis (CDC, 2021). Some of the side effects are a result of contraindications that got missed during diagnosis. In addition, these adverse reactions might be long term thereby threatening the individual’s health. Although there are some perceived dangers to vaccinations, vaccine proponents insist on the overwhelming beneficial outcome of their use, mainly disease prevention, control, and mitigation.

Disease Prevention and Mitigation of Disease Severity

Vaccine proponents argue that vaccines make disease mitigation a reality, disrupt viral transmission, and reduce hospitalization due to illness and disease. WHO estimates that globally at least 3 million saved from vaccination programs annually by boosting the immune system to protect against pathogens threats (Mallory et al., 2018). Prevention of disease infection is possible through vaccination which guards against more transmission of the virus in a population. The process can involve the induction of active immunity in vaccinated persons, thereby preventing illness, infection, and spread.

In addition, protection can be indirect by keeping susceptible individuals from exposure to the virus by flouting the human-to-human spread chain. In the infected persons, vaccinations reduce the severity of the disease by reducing mortality rate and length of stay in hospitals. As a result, the person has less chance of admission to the ICU. Studies indicate that the 2013-2014 vaccination season of flu resulted in a 52% drop in flu-related fatalities among adults, 50-64 years, while those 65 years and above witnessed a 61% reduction. Besides, the season was characterized by decreased hospital length of stay and ICU amid older adults equated to unvaccinated adults of the same age (Schaffer et al., 2018). Thus, vaccination illustrates the human ability to counteract disease infections and the severity of the disease, and the benefit of controlling the disease.

Disease Control Through Herd Immunity

There are plenty of infectious diseases that threaten our existence, and vaccination helps control diseases through the development of herd immunity. Vaccines are never 100% effective, but they offer indirect protection of those remaining at risk of infection, such as those unable to be vaccinated because of their health, contraindication, and age. Ultimately, vaccination of large population portions protects the immunologically naïve, immunocompromised, as well as unvaccinated by cutting the susceptible hosts number to the level below the required transmission threshold (Mallory et al., 2018).

Herd immunity can be established through attaining the vaccination threshold. Such an approach has been used to eradicate rinderpest and smallpox globally. In eradicating smallpox globally, an immunization of at least 80% was needed to lower transmission rates among the uninfected persons to the point of destroying the virus (Mallory et al., 2018). It has also led to the near eradication of polio and local elimination or suppression of other diseases. Thus, vaccination has made it possible for health professionals to control infections by targeting populations.

Conclusion

Vaccination remains a controversial subject in contemporary medical practice because of the pre-existing perceived dangers and benefits. Whereas there are specific threats to this promising area of experimental sciences, there are certainly some threats. However, the benefits of immunizations by far outweigh the potential dangers. Furthermore, benefits such as disease mitigation and prevention as well as control of disease through herd immunity provide a solid foundation for support of vaccination.

Concerning the dangers, I would recommend the following: Further research into the possible impact of thimerosal use in vaccination; Educating the public on the possible contraindications relating to vaccinations; Health promotion activities targeting awareness creation on the side effects and adverse events and how to manage them; The public health professionals should also communicate to the public on the myths and misconceptions relating to vaccination. In addition, there is a need for more research on the preservation of vaccines using mercury and the potential risk associated with the preservation method.

References

CDC. (2021). Possible side effects from vaccines. Web.

Dórea, J. G. (2017). Abating mercury exposure in young children should include thimerosal-free vaccines. Neurochemical Research, 42(10), 2673-2685. Web.

Hausman, B. L. (2019). Anti/Vax: Reframing the vaccination controversy. Ilr Press.

Mallory, M. L., Lindesmith, L. C., & Baric, R. S. (2018). Vaccination-induced herd immunity: successes and challenges. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 142(1), 64-66. Web.

Schaffner, W., McElhaney, J., Rizzo, A. A., Savoy, M., Taylor, A. J., & Young, M. (2018). The dangers of influenza and benefits of vaccination in adults with chronic health conditions. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, 26(6), 313-322. Web.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has made people desperate for choices in terms of taking the vaccine or assuming it. The global outlook has devised modes of advocating for its population to take the vaccine. Some governments have taken the initiative to ensure their citizens are left with no choice against taking the vaccine. The vaccination will enable countries affected by the pandemic to have a reduced number of deaths (Bhargava & Doshi, 2021).

The introduction of mandatory vaccination is morally upright because it saves people from death emanating from the deadly virus. Citizens should be immunized to ensure they boost their thrill to fight the virus. Every citizen should be their neighbor’s keepers to ensure the next generation is kept safe. The ideology of not having the vaccine puts pressure on people who need an ambient condition where they can focus on their daily ventures. Whenever a person gets vaccinated, they enable the economy to open up and pave daily activities.

Support for Mandatory Vaccination

There has been massive support for mandatory vaccination as compared to those opposing the opinion. The jurisdiction of COVID-19 vaccination is a mode of self-realignment that every citizen should take with seriousness. Giannouchos et al. (2021) posit that it is fundamental for the globe to retain anyone’s right to live. Anybody that declines to take the vaccine poses a community challenge of establishing a weak link for the infection to start affecting people.

For instance, in Greece, its population showed overwhelming support of up to 74% for forced inoculation of coronavirus vaccine (Giubilini, 2021). By default, the government is a representation of the goodwill of the people. Whenever they come up with policies, it is for the goodness of the population. Having a community outreach within Greece is a show of support for the vaccination program. Some have gone to the extent of convincing people that do not want to be vaccinated to take the jab.

Mandatory vaccination is becoming a popular initiative to ensure people take the right direction. Every citizen is on the verge of ensuring their country achieves herd immunity through compulsory vaccination. As much as there is a lower approval rate for vaccine intake, it does not mean that it is challenging to draw public benefit from vaccination. For the global population to attain herd immunity is through voluntary vaccination. Many people live in a world of fallacy because they follow the slightest rumors that can misguide others making the vaccination process a menace (Giubilini, 2021). The moral obligation of undergoing the vaccination process is to enable people to have coercive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The benefits of having coercive vaccination outweigh the disadvantages that can put a population at equilibrium. Guibilini posits that measles and polio vaccination data enables the globe to kick out the effect of such diseases. This has enabled the world to enjoy low infection rates of measles and polio. If the same is done to the COVID-19 pandemic, it will allow people to stop the infection with the chance of eradicating it (Bhargava & Doshi, 2021).

It is fundamental for countries to employ better coercion techniques to enable the vaccination process to center. Rasheed (2021) notates that compulsory vaccination is justified because it protects the population against the pandemic. Anyone has the right to informed consent, but when the pandemic affects everyone, their right is not absolute. The realism behind mandatory vaccination is vectored by the fact that there is a big difference between fidelity to human rights and forced vaccination.

Ethics against Mandatory Support

The code of ethics has been put in the weight balance by encouraging mandatory vaccination. According to Vickers (2019), the government should respect people’s rights to informed consent. There is no good in supporting the majority while ignoring the rights of the minority. Vickers (2019), being against the mandatory vaccination process, insinuates that the government has a moral obligation to consider coercion of accelerating policy approvals that affect human rights. Everyone has the right to be respected and heard, for respect to be paramount. Bhargave and Doshi (2021) state that forced vaccination has the strength to divide society. Therefore, implementing mandatory vaccination will lead to societal segregation and change in population idealism. When the community is divided, government leaders affect the economy because workplace ethics and other economic hubs will have difficulty managing people affected with differential idealism.

Conclusion

The general ideology that is dividing people is whether mandatory vaccination gives them the benefits they should get. Everyone is entitled to their outlook, but there must be a governing directive when it comes to health matters. As much as everyone has the right to choose, they should realize everyone has the right to live. Even cultural affiliations do not determine the medical analogy of any given vicinity. Ethics dictate that being alive is the ultimate course that every individual should advocate.

If taking the vaccine is the way, people should be willing to take the jab for humanity to positivity. The economy is crippling because some people think taking the vaccination is a bad idea. However, when the economy is down, both vaccinated and unvaccinated are affected. Both of them face the danger of dying of hunger even before the virus reaches them. It is the initiative of everyone to ensure they get vaccinated for the world to return to its normal operations.

References

Bhargave, A. & Doshi, P. (2021). Vaccine mandates: a new form of ‘institutional segregation. The Baltimore Sun. Web.

Giannouchos, T. V., Steletou, E., Saridi, M., & Souliotis, K. (2021). Mandatory vaccination support and intentions to get vaccinated for COVID‐19: Results from a nationally representative general population survey in October 2020 in Greece. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice.

Giubilini, A. (2021). Vaccination ethics. British Medical Bulletin, 137(1), 4-12.

Graeber, D., Schmidt-Petri, C., & Schröder, C. (2021). Attitudes on voluntary and mandatory vaccination against COVID-19: Evidence from Germany. PloS one, 16(5), e0248372.

Rasheed, Z. (2021). Should COVID-19 vaccines be mandatory? Aljazeera. Web.

Vickers, A. (2019). Why vaccination is unethical and immoral. Stuff. Web.

Influenza, while considerably common in the present day, is still a dangerous disease that can easily have a number of severe effects. It is necessary to take prevention measures seriously and engage with the best current medical practices in order to promote the safety of oneself and their loved ones. Influenza spreads from person to person at a distance of up to 6 feet, facilitating spread in densely populated cities and urban environments. In the majority of cases, flu is contained within droplets of fluid, allowing for easy transmission in a variety of situations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018). Talking with a person with flu or touching various surfaces they had access to presents a danger to one’s immune system.

In the case of the flu, the most effective solution is vaccination. The flu people find today is largely not as dangerous as it was in the past, but there are certain risk groups that need more caution than others. Pregnant people, in particular, experience flu more severely, often requiring medical attention (CDC, 2021). Hospitalization is often required in these cases to ensure the wellbeing of both the future child and their parent. Waiting for a child to be born is a vulnerable period for a pregnant person, where the immune system is often under severe stress. The added pressure of forming a new organism puts the body under an increased strain, making it easier for people with pregnancies to get the disease. Additionally, influenza has the potential to affect the developmental process of a child, resulting in severe health issues or other unforeseen consequences (CDC, 2021). Therefore, people with pregnancies have to ensure their own safety and the safety of their future children by being vaccinated. Vaccination assists the immune system in preventing disease and prepares the body for possible appearances of the flu virus.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). How flu spreads. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Flu & pregnancy. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web.

The research proposal “A Study to Determine Whether there is a Relationship between African Americans Hesitancy to Receive COVID-19 Vaccines and The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment” has a design that uses quantitative methods to determine if the four hypotheses worked out in the research proposal are true or false. Interestingly, Timans et al. (2019) note that convergence of methods in social science research has recently become a popular trend. This combination was made possible by using the Mixed Methods Research or MMR, which has features of both qualitative and quantitative methods and implies the interpenetration of these methods and the analysis of relationships between the data obtained using both methods. This paper aims to discuss how the research proposal can benefit from using qualitative methods along with a quantitative one.

The research uses quantitative methods to analyze the answers to the short questionnaire, applying the Likert scale. The study aims to determine if the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment had a long-term impact on the African Americans’ reluctance to get vaccinated. It also aims to find out if the different social groups of African Americans were impacted differently and whether other factors contributed to the participants’ negative mentality regarding the vaccination. However, if the researchers included the qualitative method in their design, they could collect some personal stories that could be shared with the public. The researchers could ask the older African Americans what emotional impact the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment story had on them and if they had acquaintances who became the victims of the experiment. Applying qualitative methods could enhance the project by creating a broader and more authentic perspective of the events that happened 89- years ago.

Thus, it was discussed how the research proposal could benefit from using mixed methods research. Introducing the qualitative methods in the research design can potentially enhance the study process by making it more authentic and providing a broader perspective. Applying the mixed methods became very popular since it allows enriching the solely quantitative or qualitative studies by using various techniques and cross-analyzing the data received.

Reference

Timans, R., Wouters, P., & Heilbron, J. (2019). Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2), 193-216. doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5

Introduction

Currently, society approaches countering deadly diseases through herd immunity. The scientists insist that for humanity’s good people should think collectively rather than individually. One such scientist, Marcus du Sautoy, wrote “Why aren’t people listening to scientists?” in Los Angeles Times, arguing that although there is a risk in vaccinating, it is primarily tiny (Du Sautoy). He begins building his credibility with both universal and personal facts along with reputable scientific data, applying the convincing facts. He sufficiently employs emotional appeals and, by the end of his article, strengthens his credibility and, therefore, his argument sustaining dialog with the audience.

Rhetorical Context

In his article, Marcus starts with setting the stage through the description of the contradictory situation in society’s trust in scientific evidence. He describes the simple truths in their perception by a child on an intuitive level. He continues by discussing that intuition and scientific evidence are different in their nature and might contradict each other. Hence, the issue of society’s distrust of scientists based on intuitive simplified perception in terms of lack of understanding the scientific grounds arises. Du Sautoy suggests that possible solutions hide in the scientists understanding of people’s psychology and take it into account while presenting their conclusions. The crucial part of practical science is a robust argumentation over the data’s interpretation. Du Sautoy states that the government and the public are often confused by the lack of definitive, clear answers to the questions they have. Although today’s skeptical age should be making people listen to scientists, some politicians use a challenging approach to well-tested scientific theories to gain unprecedented popularity and followers. The rejectionists dismiss the experts refusing the idea that the last persuade the best interests.

The Author and the Audience

In 2010, the author of the article, du Sautoy, gained an OBE award for his service to science (“Marcus du Sautoy’). He is “Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford where he holds the prestigious Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science and is a Fellow of New College” (Topping). He is a well-known author for The Independent, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, and The Times. The Guardian refers to du Sautoy as the “de facto public face of maths” (Topping). In May 2016, his fourth and, currently, the latest book was published under the title “What We Cannot Know,” highlighting the limits of human understanding and science (Topping). In the given article, this topic proceeds to discuss the pros and cons of vaccination and its followers and rejectionists.

The author’s audience consists of both the society and the representatives of the scientific world. The public needs certainty, and this need is one of the biggest challenges for scientists, as the tension between unknown and known significantly affects people’s deeds and thoughts. Du Sautoy calls the scientists to “bridge the gulf in understanding by engaging more with the public, particularly when it comes to research that will have a big impact on society” (Du Sautoy). He considers the scientists obligation to provide the public with a genuine exchange rather than one-way lecturing.

Logos and Pathos

According to du Sautoy, science is very clear about the role of vaccination in preventing disease spread. Each virus is characterized by the so-called “reproduction number” – the quantity of secondarily infected people in an unvaccinated society (Eisenberg). For example, the reproduction number of influenza varies between 2-3, whereas the same rate of smallpox reaches 5-7 (Du Sautoy). Du Sautoy stresses the rightness of epidemiologists, who proposed to inoculate around 80% of the Earth’s population, stating that it will result in successful smallpox eradication (Du Sautoy). The percentage of people to be inoculated was counted based on the smallpox rates, which turned out to be correct.

Marcus urges people to realize that unless some new data shows that the model people got acquainted with is erroneous, such revelations should not refute all scientific research and achievements. He gives a vivid example of discovering a new subatomic particle. People knew nothing about it before, but it does not fundamentally change the current understanding of gravity or biology in no time.

Evidence

Du Sautoy refers to the growing cases of measles as evidence. He refreshes in the audience’s memory the WHO’s statistics of 2015: there were over 134,000 measles deaths recorded, which is around 370 deaths daily or approximately fifteen deaths per hour (Du Sautoy). The vaccine for measles is available worldwide, but its reproduction number is still high (12-18) (Guerra et al.). Hence, it is possible to eradicate measles only through inoculating over 90% of the population (Du Sautoy). Meanwhile, several doctors are spreading rumors regarding the interrelation of rubella, mumps, and measles vaccine with autism. Despite the efforts of thousands of scientists to disprove and debunk those rumors, the fear persists.

Conclusion

Marcus du Sautoy effectively persuades his readers in the wrong attitude to scientific evidence on vaccination, gaining his power by the end of the article. He successfully uses the approach of simplified analogies as examples to explain to people the issues they could not understand before. His audience realizes that the scientists are eventually ready to share their knowledge and conclusions and clarify the ways they worked out their theories. Although du Sautoy uses accessible language and his speech is not burdened by incomprehensible layman terminology, the whole article remains a scientifically sound opinion. It is noteworthy that he successfully appeals both to the ordinary audience and the representatives of the scientific world, encouraging them to fully share information and knowledge.

Works Cited

Du Sautoy, M. Why Aren’t People Listening to Scientists? Los Angeles Times, 2017, Web.

Eisenberg, Joseph. R0: How Scientists Quantify the Intensity of an Outbreak Like Coronavirus and Its Pandemic Potential. School of Public Health, 2020. Web.

Guerra, Fiona M., et al. “The Basic Reproduction Number (R0) of Measles: A Systematic Review.” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 17, no. 12, July 2017. Researchgate.

Marcus Du Sautoy. n.d., 2020. Web.

Topping, A. Marcus Du Sautoy. Green Heaton, n.d., 2020. Web.

In their work, healthcare professionals must rely on a certain philosophical foundation which is capable of informing their decisions and guiding their actions. There are several notable theories which are applicable to the healthcare setting and which doctors and nurses can follow. One of the theories which are particularly common among healthcare professionals which can be applied to different workplace situations is the Critical Theory and Emancipatory Knowing which accompanies it.

The Critical Theory and Emancipatory Knowing are two phenomena which are inextricably linked with each other. Specifically, the Critical Theory is a perspective which forms the foundation for Emancipatory Knowing (Kohlen & McCarthy, 2020). The Critical Theory refers to a framework which enables people to discover and expose social inequalities and injustices which promote the privileges of one group over another. At the same time, it is not sufficient to merely analyze and identify the injustices existing in society, and therefore actions to challenge them are needed. Emancipatory Knowing is the ability of people not only to recognize the injustices but also make efforts to disrupt the status quo and bring positive change which can resolve the problem (Allan & Evans, 2021). The Critical Theory and Emancipatory Knowing are essential tools which healthcare professionals need to utilize to deliver benefit to society.

One of the most topical issues which healthcare professionals are currently facing and which can be addressed with the Critical Theory and Emancipatory Knowing is the refusal of medical workers to get vaccinated. Personally, in my workplace, there were several people who decided to avoid engaging in vaccination and therefore put at risk the rest of the personnel who willingly got vaccinated. From the perspective of the Critical Theory and Emancipatory Knowing such a situation can be viewed as an injustice. In other words, a healthcare professional who refuses to get vaccinated puts at a considerable danger both their colleagues and clients. Moreover, they begin to demonstrate their privilege over the rest of the staff, many of whom took the vaccine to protect others even though they did not want to.

In order to change the situation, I, personally, proposed to other colleagues to ask the unvaccinated colleagues to undergo the vaccination processes or resign. We decided to tell the unvaccinated colleagues that they had two weeks to receive the first shot of the vaccine. Otherwise, we would petition the management to remove the potentially dangerous person from the workforce. During the process, there were considerable barriers in the form of some colleagues refusing to participate in the initiative. For instance, some individuals said that they did not wish to impose the need for vaccination on others. Moreover, the unvaccinated staff members delayed their vaccination and receive the first shot only at the end of the second week and acted aggressively towards others for an entire month. Yet, the prospect of their employment being terminated is the factor which considerably facilitated the process of change. Next time, I would not set a two-week deadline and would ask the manager to directly talk to the unvaccinated person and terminate their contract immediately if they refuse to get a vaccine.

The Critical Theory and Emancipatory Knowing are effective tools for addressing workplace inequality and injustice such as the refusal of healthcare workers to get vaccinated. The Critical Theory and Emancipatory Knowing can be used together by healthcare professionals to identify and analyze possible social issues and address them by taking actions to challenge the status quo. Personally, when applying the Critical Theory and Emancipatory Knowing to my workplace, I see that people who refuse to get vaccinated actually contribute to injustice.

References

Allan, H., & Evans, K. (2021). Theorising in everyday nursing practice: A critical analysis. New York, NY: SAGE.

Kohlen, H., & McCarthy, J. (2020). Nursing ethics: Feminist perspectives. London: Springer Nature.

Flaviviruses cause the flu, a frequently diagnosed illness that can occasionally extend to the bronchi, sinuses, and throat. It may result in varying disease severity and, on rare occasions, even fatality. The following symptoms are frequently experienced by those who have the flu: fever, feverish or chills, cough, hoarseness, watery or stuffed nose, muscle aches, migraines, and exhaustion (Hutchinson, 2018). Some people frequently have vomiting and diarrhea, but children experience it more often than grownups. Vaccination against the flu every year is the most effective way to prevent the virus. In contrast to a cold, the flu typically comes on rapidly and is frequently accompanied by fever. Unlike a cold, the flu often causes chills.

The flu vaccination uses a dormant or attenuated strain to teach one’s body to detect an antigen on the virus membrane. One’s immune system produces antibodies to fight the flu as a result. With very few exceptions, everyone aged six months and above should have a flu shot each season (Hutchinson, 2018). Everybody has to have the proper vaccinations for their age. Standard inactivated influenza vaccines are available for infants as young as six months old. Only adults are permitted to receive some immunizations. Flu vaccination is permissible for expectant mothers and those who have specific chronic medical conditions. Anyone allergic to eggs can receive a flu vaccination.

It is not recommended for infants under six months to receive a flu vaccine. In a flu vaccine, people with severe, life-threatening sensitivities to any ingredient—aside from egg proteins—shouldn’t accept it. The health professional might include gelatin, antibiotics, and other substances (Hutchinson, 2018). The influenza vaccination should not be administered to people who have experienced a significant adverse reaction to it and may not be able to get other influenza vaccines. Some people favor the vaccination while others are against it due to variations in people’s religious convictions, personal convictions or ideological grounds, security concerns, and a need for more facts from health professionals.

Reference

Hutchinson, E. C. (2018). Influenza virus. Trends in Microbiology, 26(9), 809–810.

Vaccination is one of the most effective medical interventions that save millions of lives from diseases and suffering. It reduces the level of social inequality, increases access to health services in general, and even helps to reduce poverty. To ensure a high and fair level of vaccination services, it is necessary to understand the obstacles faced by population groups where this level is insufficient. This academic work focuses on approaches designed to improve health among young people.

To make vaccination accessible, acceptable, convenient, and attractive for young people, it is necessary to consider both individual behavioral factors and contextual and social mechanisms that influence their behavior. Psychological analysis shows that young people use, often unconsciously, simplified rules of thumb to process incoming information and make decisions. Such mechanisms are helpful because they allow young people to react quickly to situations that arise in everyday life. However, they can lead to a distorted perception of risk and a bias towards vaccination and health-related information.

When developing interventions to increase the use of vaccination services among young people, it is necessary to consider these psychological mechanisms and how they affect individual behavior. At the same time, the above considerations should not encourage health authorities to focus only on personal aspects (Paul et al., 2021). Moreover, they should not rely on providing information as the only way to influence young people’s vaccination behavior. Such an approach will lead to only minor positive behavioral shifts. It is based on the assumption that if young people have sufficient knowledge or receive well-thought-out messages, they will inevitably make the “right” decision.

However, it should be noted that other essential influences on behavioral aspects are ignored. Scientific psychology proves that directly motivating young people to get vaccinated can have a more significant impact than changing what they think and how they relate to vaccinations in theory (Dubé et al., 2018). Therefore, systemic factors such as policy, provision of medical services, costs, and logistics are essential aspects of influencing the behavior of young people to vaccination. One of the most effective approaches is the Tailoring Immunization Programs (TIP) developed by the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

The Tailoring Immunization Programs

Tailoring Immunization Program considers national and global health goals and contributes to their achievement. The solution of ambitious tasks to ensure immunization compliance with the principles of justice requires specific actions of both young people-patients and medical workers. TIP contributes to determining the optimal ways to support and motivate such actions, helping health authorities achieve their goals (Dubé et al., 2018). TIP processes aim to achieve a high and appropriate level of vaccination services, and the desire to ensure equality in vaccination issues is a vital principle of the TIP approach.

TIP covers individual and social elements and offers a conceptual framework and methodology for analyzing and describing a wide range of factors affecting vaccination rates. In such a conceptual framework, the most crucial moment in the decision-making process on vaccination is the patient’s contact or the child’s parents with medical professionals (Dubé et al., 2018). This approach favorably changes the attitude of this population group to vaccination, increases the degree of trust in medical professionals, and positively affects the level of social responsibility.

TIP is based on objective data from medical anthropology, psychology, sociology, and communication theory. In such processes, to obtain context-specific information and ideas, national, regional, and global data are analyzed, and the results of proven research methods (Dubé et al., 2018). Interventions aimed at increasing the level of use of vaccination services are based on evidence and not on subjective assumptions or traditional solutions.

This approach minimizes inequalities in the health status of young people, as it is based on proper vaccination, taking into account the economic, ethnic, and cultural differences of people. It does not ignore the critical components of public health in modern society and the most vital issues of social justice (Dubé et al., 2018). TIP is the result of the hard work of the World Health Organization aimed at a new way of thinking about the direction of the policy of eliminating any inequality in the health status of any population group.

The Importance of Interdisciplinary Teams

Monitoring and evaluation allow determining to what extent interventions are successful and outline ways to improve further. The participation of interdisciplinary medical professionals in strengthening young people’s health is significant since such interaction contributes to the full implementation of immunization programs (Paul et al., 2021). It should be mentioned that the main objectives of immunization programs are equity, people-centered, evidence-based, integrated, and participatory. In turn, the main tasks of interdisciplinary medical workers are:

• The formulation of individual health promotion goals and objectives.
• The formation of an individual health promotion program.
• The selection of criteria for the effectiveness and safety of an individual health promotion program.
• The implementation of an individual health promotion program (Paul et al., 2021).

To make vaccination possible, desirable, and positive for young people, interdisciplinary health professionals interact with them and listen to them. In this way, they respond to the needs of young people and form policies accordingly, organize vaccination services and carry out effective communication (Dubé et al., 2018). Understanding the interests of young people allows interdisciplinary medical professionals to adapt services, strategies, and investments to their needs.

Joint work contributes to forming an atmosphere of ownership and ensures shared responsibility. The convening of a group of stakeholders who usually do not participate in structured discussions on vaccination issues can be of additional benefit, which will provide new insights that are valuable for both participants and organizers (Paul et al., 2021). Various levels of interaction with stakeholders are provided, for example, through seminars, in-depth interviews, and the activities of special working groups.

References

Dubé, E., Leask, J., Wolff, B., Hickler, B., Balaban, V., Hosein, E., & Habersaat, K. (2018). The WHO Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) approach: Review of implementation to date.Vaccine, 36(11), 1509-1515. Web.

Paul, E., Steptoe, A., & Fancourt, D. (2021). Attitudes towards vaccines and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Implications for public health communications.The Lancet Regional Health-Europe, 1, 100012. Web.

Human papilloma virus is among the most common diseases which are transmitted sexually. It is a dangerous public health issue because HPV leads to oncogenic complications of the anogenital area in both males and females without a strong correlation with age factors. Many countries have already implemented national HPV vaccination programs in accordance with WHO recommendations.

However, already in a number of countries, there is a potential for complete disappearance or decrease of anogenital warts within the population, which is associated with the short incubation period of this HPV and is the first marker of the effectiveness of vaccination in the population. Therefore, it is important to bring awareness to the importance of vaccination against HPV in order to prevent associated complications in terms of various oncogenic health abnormalities.

Background

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a category of widespread and genetically heterogeneous DNA viruses that infect the epithelium of the mucous membranes and skin. Papillomaviruses affect a wide range of vertebrates, and HPV virions contain double-stranded, annularly twisted DNA and are devoid of a sheath. The capsid is an icosahedron about 55 nm in diameter, composed of several capsomeres. HPV is lipid-free and is inactivated by fat solvents (CITE).

During replication, the virus releases a number of proteins, the synthesis of which is controlled by early and late genes. Early genes control the processes of replication, transcription, and transformation.

They are responsible for the oncogenic properties of HPV, in part due to the fact that they bind proteins in epithelial cells – regulators of cell division, thus inactivating their suppressive functions. Late genes encode the structural proteins of the virion, and these are always found in tumor cells. Other fragments of the viral genome are not detected since they can be lost during its long-term replication.

The human papillomavirus replication process is divided into two main stages. The initial phase of the HPV infectious process is characterized by the persistence of the virus in episomal form. During this period, the cell is capable of producing viral particles, and this stage is called the stage of reproductive infection. The late-stage is an integrative infection, and at this stage, the virus DNA is inserted or integrated into the genome of the infected cells.

The true latency of HPV in the host organism corresponds to this stage. The initial stage is reversible, and many infected people can go into remission. The stage of integrative infection is the first step towards tumor cell degeneration and often ends with the development of carcinoma. These stages of viral infection correspond to two different clinical forms of the disease, such as transient and latent, respectively.

HPV and Associated Diseases

The high incidence of sexually transmitted infections in the population attracts the attention of specialists from all countries due to the frequent development of complications leading to dysfunction of the reproductive system. It is important to consider one of the urgent problems of modern medicine, which is a human papillomavirus infection. It ranks first in terms of prevalence among sexually transmitted diseases. Most of the sexually active population becomes infected with human papillomavirus during their lifetime.

HPV causes a wide range of cancers of the reproductive system, including cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers, as well as anal and anogenital warts, which are common in both men and women (Hu & Ma, 2018). The only reliable method of preventing human papillomavirus infection is vaccination.

Historically, HPV has been infecting humans for a long time because warts, both on the hands and plantar, were known as early as the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and external anogenital warts are common across various populations. Human papillomaviruses that infect epithelial cells of the skin and mucous membranes are etiologically associated with the development of pathological changes in the cervix and cervical cancer as well as anogenital warts or condylomas and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.

Increased Risk of Cancer

HPV causes a wide range of cancers of the reproductive system, including cancer of the cervix, vulvar and vaginal cancers, as well as cancer of the anal canal and anogenital warts. The occurrence of cervical cancer in young women is a serious social problem that leads to a deterioration in the quality of health, disability and a decrease in fertile function. HPV-associated diseases are a significant health burden in many nations. HPV is associated with other malignancies such as squamous cell cancers of the penis, vagina, vulva, anus, and neck and head (Bansal et al., 2016).

The diagnosis of papillomavirus infection is made on the basis of clinical manifestations, histological examination, colposcopy data, determination of the virus DNA by the polymerase chain reaction method. The most effective and promising is a complex combined method of therapy when the local removal of altered tissues is carried out against the background of systemic treatment. There is no specific antiviral therapy, and therefore, previous treatment cannot protect against the recurrence of the disease, which means that it is symptomatic.

Vaccination and Its Effects

Vaccination can be used as a highly effective preventative tool that ensures the human body immunization against HPV. It is stated that vaccination-based preventative measures can significantly reduce the occurrence rate of cervical cancer (Egli-Gany et al., 2019). Vaccination primarily contains virus-like particles that do not induce infection among the cells, but it triggers the immune response.

The immune system launches the process of antibody generation that can identify these virus-like particles through complementary protein-protein interaction. The fact that vaccines do not contain the entirely functional virus allows the body to form immunity-based memory, which will be ready for further infections of HPV. The basis for the prevention of HPV-associated pathological conditions, such as cervical cancer, is vaccination.

HPV vaccines have been registered and used in many countries for a long time. The main types of vaccines are the bivalent vaccine and the quadrivalent vaccine (Petrosky et al., 2015). The bivalent vaccine protects against cervical cancer, cancer of the vulva, vagina, cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of various degrees, and persistent HPV infection.

The quadrivalent vaccine protects against cervical cancer, cancer of the vulva, vagina, anal cancer, anogenital warts, cervical, anal, vulvar, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasias, and adenocarcinoma in situ. International clinical trials have confirmed a wide range of protection of quadrivalent and nine-valent HPV vaccines and made it possible to recommend it for the prevention of not only cervical cancer but also cancer of the vulva, vagina, anal canal and anogenital warts in both sexes (Bergman et al., 2019).

It is critical to note that the use of a nine-valent version of the vaccine can be more effective at reducing the occurrence of certain forms of cancer compared to quadrivalent ones (Petrosky et al., 2015). Thus, vaccination provides effective protection against the most dangerous types of HPV, which are the cause of severe HPV-associated lesions and cervical cancer.

Vaccination prevents infection during the first sexual contact as a result of which its greatest effectiveness is observed during vaccination even before the onset of sexual activity. Vaccination is effective for the prevention of HPV infection and diseases associated with HPV, including precancer and cervical cancer.

Vaccination as a Prevention and Risk Reduction Tool

A special place in the primary prevention of human papillomavirus infection is occupied by the use of antiviral HPV vaccines. In order to protect against HPV-associated diseases, it is advisable to vaccinate girls and boys aged 12-13 years before the onset of sexual activity and potential exposure to HPV. It is stated that young girls can expect an improved level of outcome regarding HPV-related cancer due to vaccination (Brisson et al., 2020).

Thus, in order to obtain a meaningful result, the maximum coverage is required, which is possible within the framework of the implementation of regional health development programs. For example, extensive research in Kenya showed that vaccine-based prevention could be highly effective in addressing the issue of cervical cancer (Menon et al., 2016). Vaccination against HPV will indirectly affect such items of regional health development programs as the prevention of HPV-associated diseases.

In addition, it is important to improve the provision of specialized, including high-tech, medical care, the development and implementation of innovative methods of prevention, and the protection of the health of mothers and children. Vaccines can significantly reduce the global burden of HPV-associated disease (Jacot-Guillarmod et al., 2017).

In cities and regions where there is no government immunization program, pediatricians should inform patients and their parents about the possibility of vaccination in specialized centers to protect against the serious consequences of HPV infection. One should be aware that human papilloma virus is among the most influential factors of carcinogens that lead to oncogenic complications (Petrosky et al., 2015). The relationship between infection with HPV types of oncogenic risk and the development of cancer of the cervix, anogenital region, and oropharynx have been established and proven.

One of the most effective methods of preventing these diseases is vaccination against human papillomavirus. There are currently three HPV vaccines that are commonly used and safe in preventing HPV infection. These include bivalent, tetravalent, and nine-valent HPV vaccines, which protect against HPV 16 and 18; HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18; and HPV 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, respectively (Petrosky et al., 2015).

It is important to understand that human papilloma virus 16 and 18 are the leading cause of nearly all cervical cancers worldwide (Petrosky et al., 2015). HPV 6 and 11 are found in most of all anogenital warts. However, there are a number of problems associated with the implementation of the vaccination program, one of which is the low level of public awareness of the effectiveness and safety of vaccination.

Vaccination Awareness

It is critically important to bring elevated awareness on vaccination both globally and locally in order to ensure that citizens strive to acquire the immunization against HPV. It can be achieved through the active involvement of the government, which needs to allocate the necessary amount of budget to conduct nation-level vaccination. The benefit will be manifested in two forms, such as public health improvement and financial cost reduction of healthcare spending. Although HPV vaccination does not provide an immediate effect, the awareness campaign needs to present the program as a long-term investment into a public’s future.

Use of Vaccination in Different States

Given the high prevalence of HPV infection, its significant contribution to the structure of morbidity and mortality in women from cancer, it becomes clear that this problem needs to be addressed at the state level. Although global eradication of HPV requires to take place at a worldwide scale, the implementation and practical use need state-level integration. By ensuring each state allocates the required budget into the prevention program, it will be possible to reduce instances of oncogenic manifestation by a substantial margin.

Problematic Access to Vaccines in Poor Regions

The main issue of eradicating the HPV virus globally is the fact that many disadvantaged regions have no proper access to vaccination. For instance, the study concludes that the overall increase of cervical cancer instances in Asia is partially linked with the lack of access to vaccination-based prevention (Toh et al., 2017). Such regions require intervention from global organizations and charity foundations in order to ensure that vaccination is implemented and accessible. Delivering vaccines into these regions are necessary in order to reduce HPV spread and other measures, such as intercourse protection, might be needed.

Ways to Promote Awareness

One of the main approaches in promoting awareness on HPV vaccination is the governmental involvement in raising the concern. In addition, public and health officials need to be proactive in informing the masses on both potential dangers of HPV-related complications and possible solutions. Private institutions can also be active proponents of vaccination-based prevention by advancing vaccine access and developing screening methods. Thus, awareness is directly dependent on the commonality of knowledge regarding the issue.

Possible Improvements Due to Increased Awareness

Increased awareness regarding HPV prevention through vaccination can have a major impact on public health. It is important to note that although the latter approach is considered to be a primary prevention tool, it can be supplemented by secondary techniques, such as screening (Finocchario-Kessler et al., 2016).

The most probable improvement will come in a span of years when vaccinated HPV-immune young individuals will reach the average age of cervical cancer occurrence. A significant drop in the instances of HPV-related complications will be a powerful signal of the successful implementation of vaccination.

Perspectives

Screening and vaccination as a preventative tool alone can result in significantly improved outcomes in terms of public health. The current advancement in the prevention of HPV can be improved through modeling techniques that assist in ensuring effective prevention measures (Canfell et al., 2019). Some researchers suggest a new shift in the paradigm of understanding HPV’s oncogenic effects, but the support for vaccine-based prevention remains relevant (Chrysostomou et al., 2018). Modeling can be highly effective at predicting the movement pattern of the virus as well as generating a distribution map.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the human papilloma virus is one of the major causes of various forms of cancer, where the most prominent one is cervical cancer. Although there are no effective methods of virus elimination post-infection, vaccination can be highly effective at prevention of HPV-related complications. It is important to understand that there are a number of vaccine versions available, where quadrivalent and nine-valent forms are the most common.

A wide range of studies supports the fact that vaccines are effective at significantly reducing the instances of cervical cancer and other oncogenic complications. Therefore, the key recommendation is to raise the public’s overall awareness of the ramifications of HPV and available solutions to the problem.

References

Bansal, A., Singh, M., & Rai, B. (2016). Human papillomavirus-associated cancers: A growing global problem. International Journal of Applied Basic Medical Research, 6(2), 84-89. Web.

Bergman, H., Bucklery,B., Villanueva, G., Petkovic, J., Garritty, C., Lutje, V., … Henschke, N. (2019). Comparison of different human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine types and dose schedules for prevention of HPV‐related disease in females and males. Cochrane Database Systemic Review, 2019(11). Web.

Brisson, M., Kim, J., Canfell, K., Drolet, K., Gingras, G., Burger E.A., … Hutubessy, R. (2020). Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: A comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Lancet, 395(10224), 575-569. Web.

Canfell, K., Kim, J., Kulasingam, S., Berkhof, J., Barnabas, R., Bogaards, R., … Jit, M. (2019). HPV-FRAME: A consensus statement and quality framework for modelled evaluations of HPV-related cancer control. Papillomavirus Research, 8, 100184. Web.

Chrysostomou, A., Stylianou, D., Constantinidou, A., & Kostrikis, K. (2018). Cervical cancer screening programs in Europe: The transition towards HPV vaccination and population-based HPV testing. Viruses, 10(12), 729. Web.

Egli-Gany, D., Zographos, A., Diebold, J., Masserey, V., Tirri, B., Heusser, R., … Low, N. (2019). Human papillomavirus genotype distribution and socio-behavioural characteristics in women with cervical pre-cancer and cancer at the start of a human papillomavirus vaccination programme: The CIN3+ plus study. BMC Cancer, 19, 111. Web.

Finocchario-Kessler, S., Wexler, C., Maloba, M., Mabachi, N., Ndikum-Moffor, F., & Bukusi, E. (2016). Cervical cancer prevention and treatment research in Africa: A systematic review from a public health perspective. BMC Women’s Health, 16, 29. Web.

Jacot-Guillarmod, M., Pasquier, J., Greub, G., Bongiovanni, M., Achtari, C., & Sahl, R. (2017). Impact of HPV vaccination with Gardasil® in Switzerland. BMC Infectious Diseases, 17, 790. Web.

Hu, Z., & Ma, D. (2018). The precision prevention and therapy of HPV‐related cervical cancer: New concepts and clinical implications. Cancer Medicine, 7(10), 5217-5236. Web.

Menon, S., Wusiman, A., Boily, M., Kariisa, M., Mabeya, H., Luchters, S., … van den Broeck, D. (2016). Epidemiology of HPV genotypes among HIV positive women in Kenya: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 11(10), e0163965. Web.

Petrosky, E., Bocchini, J. A., Jr, Hariri, S., Chesson, H., Curtis, C. R., Saraiya, M., Unger, E. R., & Markowitz, L. E. (2015). Use of 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: Updated HPV vaccination recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64(11), 300-304. Web.

Toh, Z., Licciardi, P., Russel, F., Garland, S., Batmunkh, T., & Mulholland, E. (2017). Cervical cancer prevention through HPV vaccination in low- and middle-income countries in Asia. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 18(9), 2339-2343. Web.

Abstract

The influenza virus is one of the deadliest respiratory diseases that has killed several in the United States and other parts of the world. Between 2018 and 2019, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that influenza killed over 35,000 people in the US alone. The disease affects the elderly, especially those aged 65 years and above. The main issue, however, is that most cases remain unreported. Worse still, most people tend to keep it to themselves. While influenza virus can be immunized, most people do not seek to be vaccinated for fear of some of the rumors that have originated from some medical practitioners. According to the CDC data, only about 49% of adults and 59% of children go for influenza virus immunization. The current projects seek to build awareness of vaccination to increase the rate by 10% within three months through virtual education. The success of this project implies that the government and the medical leadership can find other strategies to educate the people about the virus and the burden of the disease to the US economy. This may change the perception of people and turn them towards seeking it to be immunized.

Introduction

The influenza virus is one of the most common infections that affects a great majority of people in different parts of the world. It is characterized by swollen lymph nodes, breathing difficulty, chest pains, fever, fatigue, nausea, among other symptoms (Nyamusore et al., 2018). According to Hartman et al. (2018), underdiagnoses of influenza are a common occurrence in different hospitals across the globe. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC (2019), estimated that there were more than 35.5 million cases of influenza infections in the United States between 2018 and 2019. Out of that number of cases, there were 16.5 million hospital visits where 49,600 were hospitalized (Campos-Outcalt, 2018), and 34, 200 people died from the disease. CDC further revealed that 136 children died between 2018 and 2019 as a result of the infection.

The organization further revealed that many deaths that result from influenza attack do not become part of the statistics, partly because not all children’s deaths resulting from the virus attack were tested in the laboratories. CDC’s estimation of rates of hospitalization and deaths associated with the influenza virus season over the past few five years suggests how severe the infection is and how worse it can get (CDC, 2019). Data from the organization reveal that there were over 46,000 cases of hospitalizations among children. There were 8100 deaths among young adults aged between 18 and 64 years. However, the data revealed that 57% of the reported influenza cases occurred among older adults over 65 years old. Furthermore, the CDC showed that older adults’ death resulted in 75% of all cases. Thus, the data is significant in that it demonstrates that older people are more prone to the virus and can easily succumb when infected.

The main issue that increases influenza-related deaths results from the laxity of individuals to get vaccinated against the virus. According to the CDC (2016), only 59.3% are vaccinated among children, and 43.6% among adults. However, the number should exceed that due to the severe threats that disease poses to the country. The primary cause for insufficient vaccination is that the lack of information and attitudes towards influenza virus infection (Boey et al., 2018). The issue of not taking vaccination affects both ordinary people and medical practitioners. According to Pless et al. (2017), the main reasons why nursing object against influenza vaccination include the idea that influenza virus weakens the body and makes it unhealthy, the need to maintain their decisional autonomy and distrust on the surrounding environment. Unfortunately, most of these ideas are within the public, who question the need for the vaccine if those who should administer have doubts about it use.

The current project seeks to improve influenza vaccination among patients aged between 18 and 75 years old. The project expects to achieve this goal by providing virtual education awareness among outpatients and increase the rate of vaccination by 10% in three months. Since the issue affects clinician as well, the best platform to approach these issues is to incorporate nurses who recognize the need for vaccination. The current wave of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can provide an excellent way to reach the people on the need for taking in flu vaccines (Lee et al., 2020). The world is open to knowledge through mobile phone devices and the internet; thus, using a virtual platform to provide the needed education is essential to approach taken in this project. The outcome of this project should make nurse leaders act to improve public knowledge and attitudes towards influenza vaccination within the US.

Educating the public on the importance of influenza vaccination has worked in other parts of the world. A structured influenza vaccination campaign resulted in improved the number of vaccinations among Registered Nurses (RN) in the first quarter of the year of the campaign (Spoltore, 2016). The study found out that 91% of people vaccinated had received education against 76.1% who were uneducated on the vaccination of the flu. Also, the survey revealed that the non-educated individuals who took the vaccine accounted for 23.9% while the educated one who did not take the vaccine was 8.9% of the group. The outcome revealed a correlation between education and taking the vaccine with statistical values as x2=7.210, p=0.007 (Spoltore, 2016). Therefore, education plays a critical role in the influencing the public knowledge and attitudes concerning influenza vaccination.

Former studies conducted by other researchers revealed that motivating education improved the rate of vaccination. Burke et al. (2019) showed an evidence-based education intervention and showed that it is crucial to overcome various critical barriers that may affect the success of an education program. The authors indicated that it was essential to establish the reasons why caregivers are against influenza vaccination. The study demonstrated that most parents do not get sufficient knowledge about influenza vaccine because they have to move from one doctor to the other when seeking treatments for their children. However, they can be instrumental in passing knowledge to their families (Scott et al., 2019). Thus, educating nurses and caregivers at the start of their practice is essential to giving knowledge to the public (Burke et al., 2019). Still, it is critical to have a united voice among healthcare experts to provide a unanimous call for vaccination of influenza flu as doing this can save the lives of several people.

Non-compliance among healthcare practitioners is one of the leading causes of harm to the public. Most people are afraid to take the vaccine for fear of the consequences related to the unethical conduct of some doctors, which the public allude to the influenza vaccines (Ezeokoye, 2018). Taking guidelines from CDC can help prevent cases associated with the wrong administration of the drugs by either untrained medical personal of using generic drugs. Following the standard procedures set forth by the organization can result in better health outcomes. In particular, education on adherence to vaccination guidelines is essential. According to Krawczyk et al. (2015) and Lai et al. (2017), educating IHN RNs, Chinese sample, and Quebec daughters improved their adherence to vaccination by 48%.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of the current project is to improve influenza vaccination in patients aged 18 to 75 years old using virtual education awareness in an outpatient clinic by 10 percent within a period of 3 months. To evaluate the success of this I project I will ask the following question:

Will the exposure to influenza vaccination program increase the number of those vaccinated against the flue?

To help answer the research question, I will test the following hypotheses:

• H1: There is no statistical difference between the rate of vaccination among people who have been educated on the vaccine and those who have been educated.
• H0: There is a significant statistical difference between those who are educated and those who do not receive education on the influence vaccination.

Data

Population

This project will draw its participants from a population of adults aged from 18 to 75 years old who met the criteria of receiving the influenza vaccine and attend the Victorian Care Group (VGC) outpatient medical clinic for medical care. There 200 adults who are registered to received upkeep from the facility. Of the 200 adults, 100 (50%) have been screened for the virus in the current flu season.

Sample

This project used a sample of 30 participants selected from the 100 who were screened for influenza vaccine. Of the 100 participants, 20 were excluded from the study following the exclusion criteria used as defined by the CDC screening guidelines. According to the policy, asks the health status of the person, possible allergic reactions to the components of the vaccine. The screening tool also asks whether the person has had a severe reaction to the vaccine before or Guillain-Barré syndrome (Grohskopf, 2020). Participants who indicated they had had the issues in the checklist were excluded from the study. The 80 people who passed the inclusion criteria were asked whether they would like to participate in the study. Thirty-five of them (43.75%) agreed to be part of the survey. However, based on the pre-planned need to use 30 participants, a subsample corresponding to 37.5% was selected to take the survey.

The sample selected varied in terms of age, gender, education level, and, ethnicity. The project ran the descriptive statistics on all the demographic variables. Half the sample (50%) was assigned to the treatment group to be educated on the influenza vaccine. The other half (50%) was assigned to the control group, whereby the members in this section would not receive the treatment. Each of the participants was given a consent form to ensure they were duly informed regarding the research. The demographics included males 11 (36.87%) and females 19 (63.3%) of all ethnicities, from age 18 to 75. The average age was 32 (12). More than two thirds, 24 (80%) were African Americans. The table 1 below describes the characteristics of the sample.

Table 1. The demographics of the sample used.

Data collection

First, the rate of vaccinations was determined over the past decade to create a model that could help in understanding how the people know about influenza virus vaccine and their attitudes towards the immunization. The phone numbers of the participants were taken; they were informed that it would be used to contact them. The phone numbers were used to add the participants to virtual space (WhatsApp group). In the group, the selected 15 members of the treatment group received media information about different aspects of influenza and the vaccination needs. The members of the group were required to acknowledge that they read the information sent to them, and if they had questions, they were free to ask. This process happened for four weeks before influenza season.

Variable

This project used independent and dependent variables to measure the impact of education the rate of vaccination. Thus the independent variables included age, gender, race, and educational level. These elements measured how each factor individually led to the knowledge and attitudes towards influenza virus vaccination. The dependent variable measured the role of education on the rate of immunization. This helped to answer how education had an impact on the rate of vaccination.

Research Design

This research uses a convince control group pretest-posttest design. In this design, the participants are assigned to treatment and control groups. The two groups have the same conditions except that the treatment group are educated on the vaccine. After the initial measurements have been taken, the participants are post-tested on the dependent variable. The difference in the compared post-test measurement is used to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups based on the pretest outcomes held as a covariate analysis output.

Results

Analysis

The data will be analyzed using SPSS to produce descriptive statistics. Table 2 below indicates the number of the treatment group and the control group who attended the clinic for vaccination. The original number of participants in each group was 15. The analysis of the data produces different statistical quantities. These comprise mean, median, the standard deviation of the data, and variance as shown in table 2 below.

Table 2. The data for those who attended the clinic after the experiment.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics output.

The statistical procedure to tests the null hypothesis is a Paired Samples t-test procedure. In this case, the pretest will be compared to the posttest to determine if statistically significant gains have been made in Knowledge/Awareness. These t-tests will be executed for each group – the Treatment and the Comparison group. The pretest scores will serve as the covariate. The dependent variable (Posttest) will be compared to determine if differences between the two groups exist in Knowledge/Awareness for vaccination. The probability level for rejecting the null hypothesis is p<.05.

Table 4. T-test analysis for two sample for means.

The Paired Comparison t-test demonstrated that the treatment group had a statistically significant gain from pre to post-testing. The pretest mean was 14.30 (SD=7.11) which rose to 20.22 (SD=7.11) and was significant at the p <.05 level (t=12.88, df = 1, 14, p=.04). On the other hand, the Comparison group began with a pretest score of 14.27 (SD=7.12) and was not significantly different at post-testing with a mean of 14.27 and Standard Deviation of 7.12 (t=1.88, df =1, 14, p=22). This mean increase in the post-testing treatment group of 5.92 supports the project of utilizing influenza vaccine education awareness/knowledge based on the Center for Disease Control Vaccine Information Statement to improve knowledge about the influenza vaccine. It can also help to increase vaccine uptake by 5.92 points in adult patients 18 to 75 years in an outpatient clinic within 30 days. There will be remarkable clinical significance with an increase in knowledge and subsequent vaccine uptake of 5.92. The benefits of getting vaccinated can never be overemphasized. By this study, we may notice many clinical and cost benefits.

If the CDC influenza vaccination educational program can increase influenza vaccination uptake, we may see a corresponding decrease in influenza infections (Babcock, Jernigan, & Relman, 2014). We may see a reduction in hospitalizations, medical visits, and substantial averted illnesses. We may also witness considerable cost savings from morbidity and mortality across all age groups. We may also notice a reduction from work hours missed and loss of productivity (Petrie et al., 2015).

Discussion

Conclusion

The current project indicates that education plays a crucial role in increasing the rate of influenza vaccinations. By educating people about the disease and the importance of taking the vaccine before the flu season, they get ready by getting to the hospital to be vaccinated. Most people do not want to be vaccinated due to the fear of propaganda, some of which comes from medical professionals. However, it takes the same medical practitioners to change the perception of the people and to unite their voices to create a positive influence among the people.

Limitations

The current study is not without a flaw. Firstly, the sample used is relatively small to make the study to be adopted and used to formulate a statewide policy. As the sample increases, the more accurate the findings become. Secondly, there was bias in the selection of participants. Other methods could have resulted in a more random sample. There are a few limitations to this study.

Significance and implications

The current project has established that people shy away from taking the influenza vaccine due to the fear instilled in them. As such, most people suffer from that fear, yet, if they are aware of the truth, they can act otherwise. A significant finding from other studies showed that healthcare workers also contribute to the build-up in fear among different people. Thus, people question where they should take the vaccine when those they trust with their lives fear to take the same injections they are ready to give others (Jamison et al., 2019). Consequently, this research provides an understanding in which the doctors and other clinicians should be put under oath to protect the lives of the public, or where possible should have their licenses revoked when they are found guilty of spreading false information to the public. While this is a matter of debate, the deaths that result from the diseases cannot be excused when the source of wrong information can be closed.

Most of the issue that happens to be people as a result of taking the vaccine have resulted from failure to follow the guidelines provided by the CDC. For instance, people who suffer from Guillain Barre Syndrome should not be allowed to take the vaccine as it can react with the body, causing harm rather than help. Thus, this project underscores the need to follow the stipulated guidelines to help restore the public confidence in medical practices.

References

Hartman, L., Zhu, Y., Edwards, K. M., Griffin, M. R., & Talbot, H. K. (2018). Underdiagnosis of influenza virus infection in hospitalized older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 66(3), 467-472. Web.

Boey, L., Bral, C., Roelants, M., De Schryver, A., Godderis, L., Hoppenbrouwers, K., & Vandermeulen, C. (2018). Attitudes, believes, determinants and organisational barriers behind the low seasonal influenza vaccination uptake in healthcare workers–a cross-sectional survey. Vaccine, 36(23), 3351-3358. Web.

Pless, A., McLennan, S. R., Nicca, D., Shaw, D. M., & Elger, B. S. (2017). Reasons why nurses decline influenza vaccination: a qualitative study. BMC nursing, 16(1), 20. Web.

Burke, K., Schwartz, S., & Breda, K. (2019). Don’t hesitate, vaccinate! An influenza vaccine education program.Nursing Forum, 54(4), 553-556. Web.

Ezeokoye, C. (2018). Improving Influenza Vaccination Uptake in the United States Based on Influenza Vaccine Knowledge and Awareness from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Doctoral dissertation, Brandman University).

Scott, V. P., Opel, D. J., Reifler, J., Rikin, S., Pethe, K., Barrett, A., & Stockwell, M. S. (2019). Office-based educational handout for influenza vaccination: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics, 144(2). Web.

Krawczyk, A., Knäuper, B., Gilca, V., Dubé, E., Perez, S., Joyal-Desmarais, K., & Rosberger, Z. (2015). Parents’ decision-making about the human papillomavirus vaccine for their daughters: I. Quantitative results. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 11(2), 322-329. Web.

Lai, A., Fong, D., Lam, J., & Ip, M. (2017). Long-term efficacy of an education programme in improving adherence with continuous positive airway pressure treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea.Hong Kong Med J, 23(3 Supplement 2). Vaccine Information Statement. Web.

Grohskopf, L. A., Jatlaoui, T. C., & Fiebelkorn, A. P. (2020). 2020-2021 influenza vaccination recommendations and clinical guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Spoletore,T. L. (2016). An Evidence-Based Strategy to Improve Influenza Vaccination Rates among Registered Nurses in Hospitals.

Liang, G., Fu, W., & Wang, K. (2019). Analysis of t-test misuses and SPSS operations in medical research papers.Burn Trauma, 7(31). Web.

Nyamusore, J., Rukelibuga, J., Mutagoma, M., Muhire, A., Kabanda, A., Williams, T., Mutoni, A., Kamwesiga, J., Nyatanyi, T., Omolo, J. and Kabeja, A. (2018). The national burden of influenza‐associated severe acute respiratory illness hospitalization in Rwanda, 2012‐2014. Influenza And Other Respiratory Viruses, 12(1), 38-45. Web.

Campos-Outcalt, D. (2018). CDC recommendations for the 2018-2019 influenza season: Vaccines will contain a new A (H3N2) component and B antigen. The live attenuated influenza vaccine returns as an option for those 2–to 49-years of age. Journal of Family Practice, 67(9), 550-554.

Lee, J. S., Park, S., Jeong, H. W., Ahn, J. Y., Choi, S. J., Lee, H.,… & Jeong, S. J. (2020). Immunophenotyping of COVID-19 and influenza highlights the role of type I interferons in development of severe COVID-19. Science Immunology, 5(49). Web.

Jamison, A. M., Quinn, S. C., & Freimuth, V. S. (2019). “You don’t trust a government vaccine”: Narratives of institutional trust and influenza vaccination among African American and white adults. Social Science & Medicine, 221, 87-94. Web.

Tables

Table 1. The demographics of the sample used.

Table 2. The data for those who attended the clinic after the experiment.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics output.

Table 4. T-test analysis for two sample for means.