The Opinions About Vaccinating or Immunizations - Essay Example

? Different opinions about vaccination/immunization Vaccination or immunization of children has been matter of debate for a long time. One of the biggest debates is whether to have a child receive the influenza vaccination. There are three key players in this debate who have different opinions on the subject; these players are adolescents , adults and health care workers (HCWs). The attitudes, beliefs and education of these stakeholders will decide the success of the vaccination program for the influenza vaccination. The problem in achieving 100% results with immunization programs is not poor management of the program; it is the poor understanding of the problem and its treatment which causes causing the uncertainty in how some parents feel about vaccinating their children for influenza . Pattern and the effect of seasonal influenza immunization has been studied by Pandolfi et al. (2012), this study discussed whether children with chronic diseases should receive the influenza vaccine. The study looks for the efficacy of the program. For instance, the proportion children (the test group) who received at least one dosage of seasonal influenza, in the last season, was averaged out with the total number of children. The study by Pandolfi et al. (2012) is comprehensive in the sense that 275 children were enrolled in the program, with mean age of 8.6 years, 46% of which were females. The overall influenza coverage was found to be 57.5%. And one of the most crucial finding of the study was the children who received almost no recommendation to get influenza immunization vaccine had the lowest coverage (Pandolfi et al., 2012). Human influenza is not an ordinary illness; its serious complications can put people in hospitals. Influenza gets complicated with an underlying disease that swells in the presence of such virus. Influenza infection in children with neurological disorders can be deadly as it renders them suffering from aspiration leading to respiratory failure Pandolfi et al. (2012). In the US the vaccination process is provided to all children. Despite the gravity and the seriousness of the influenza problem, the attitudes and beliefs about the vaccination program determines whether or not parents of children with chronic illnesses will receive the vaccine. Here is the part where motivation from HCW comes into play. Children affected with HIV and children with cystic fibrosis were given more attention by HCW because the parents were reminded that their child needed to receive the influenza vaccine. There is evidence that a simple reminder or recommendation to receive the vaccine by a physician, greatly enhanced the uptake of vaccine in children with chronic diseases (Pandolfi et al., 2012). This positive influence is free from socio-demography, number of contacts with the health provider and underlying disease. Education has also been proven as a positive influence on vaccination in children. It is true, the vaccination process greatly depends on strong recommendations to receive the vaccine and education of the vaccine by physicians. Many physicians will recommend different types of administration of the vaccine. It might not mean much when it is uttered in simple words of caution; however when seriously recommended by a physician to get vaccinated the effect is proven to encourage parents to participate in receiving the vaccine. The study concludes with two factors; physicians play the single most determinant role in getting children vaccinated (Pandolfi et al., 2012). The more educated the population, the greater the vaccination covered area. The second stakeholders of the vaccination program are adolescents and adults. The study by Gowda et al. (2012) looks at attitudes of parents towards adolescent vaccination. Vaccination in adolescents has taken an important turn as there is more focus on this aspect than ever before. This study looks at how decision making is incorporated in the beliefs and attitudes of adults about vaccination. The point of the study was to look at the barriers that kept adults from wanting to have their adolescent vaccinated. And the conclusion here states that dynamic partnership with target audience is needed for a successful intervention (Gowda et al., 2012). The study revealed that most parents and adolescents are simply unaware that there are certain vaccines recommended specifically for adolescents (Gowda et al., 2012). Lack of information is one of the major reason why there is a lack of immunization coverage. In the last decade, vaccines such as the human papillomavirus (HPV), meningococcal conjugate (MCV4), tetanus-diphtheriaacellular pertussis (Tdap) and most recently seasonal influenza (Flu) vaccines have been recommended for adults as well as children (Gowda et al., 2012). It is no wonder that study and focus groups who study specifically the adult behavior regarding vaccination has become a topic of interest for many studies. The differences of opinions have been made the topic of primary health care. The coverage level of vaccine immunization against the polio virus and varicella has exceeded 90% whereas MCV4 has been recommended for adults since 2006 but the vaccination process has only reached only 69% for polio and 62% for varicella (Gowda et al. 2012). The adults’ belief system in vaccination plays a crucial role in the success of all vaccination programs. The important aspect of the study looks at the barriers in vaccination of adults. The most common reason that vaccination in adults is not as successful as in children is the lack of education on adult vaccination. Infrastructural issues along with financial concerns also limit the success of vaccination (Gowda et al. 2012). Another important discovery in this research was the difference in methodology and procedure in vaccination process in different counties (Gowda et al. 2012). It should not come as a surprise by removing the barriers in different communities requires different strategies, suited to that part of the country (Gowda et al. 2012). The study also reveals it is difficult for parents to keep up with the vaccination procedures when there is a slight adjustment or a change to the procedure of the old and new vaccines. Adults become frustrated and as a result they wind up not receiving the vaccine. Changes in the procedures often give adults the indication that the vaccine is not safe and has a negative impact on the adults understanding of the importance of the vaccine. There is also considerable difficulty in administering vaccines that require multiple shots such as the new vaccine for HPV. Trying to keep up with when to receive the shot and when to receive the next one can be frustrating. Currently there are no school mandated shots for HPV required (Gowda et al. 2012). The HPV vaccine is dealt with quite differently from other vaccines, one hypothesis is that it is related with sex and sexual behavior, therefore the parents may give their adolescent more authority over receiving the vaccine (Gowda et al. 2012). Studies have proven that when it comes to taking vaccines, the majority of adolescents take the advice of their parents and even share their parents’ beliefs and values when it comes to vaccinations. Regarding the ‘believing’ population (parents and adolescents who completely support vaccination programs), an interesting finding in Gowda et al. (2012) is the mixed response towards the use of technology. Healthcare providers reported that even though most of the parents are willing to use email, text messages but they won’t have frequent access to internet or the unfamiliarity with the tools will make it hard. However, technology can be a great supplement in immunization efforts. The study by Rujis et al. (2012) agrees with Gowda et al. (2012) on the use of technology; integrating simple technological facilities like email and SMS can greatly enhance monitoring the vaccination process. The use of internet can educate the parents about diseases, their causes and their prevention. Furthermore the communication can be made much stronger with the parents. But this comes with the motivation and attitude of stakeholders. Rujis et al.’s (2012) study recorded 27 interviews in Netherlands to learn about the causes of low vaccine coverage. And based on the context of traditional vs. deliberate decision making process four subgroups of parents were identified; traditionally vaccinating, deliberately vaccinating, traditionally non-vaccinating and deliberately non-vaccinating (Rujis et al., 2012). The parents usually made these decisions around the birth of their child, whether to take part in the National Immunization program or not. In Netherland the rise in cases of measles, mumps and rubella is disturbing. These diseases which can be controlled with vaccination; however, children are not being vaccinated for religious reasons (Rujis et al., 2012). The main barrier is the reluctance of the orthodox protestant community in vaccinating their children. They common belief is that the ‘faith’ will heal the sick and the religious justification for some of the parents who vaccinated their children was their faith wasn’t strong enough to heal and prevent the children on its own that is why they needed the vaccine. The religious administration does not force anyone against taking the vaccine, all individuals are free to choose to vaccination. ‘Tradition’ can be a very strong tool in determining social behaviors. It matters a lot for people whether their elders followed a certain practice or not. Following the footsteps of ancestors is termed as ‘Band wagoning’. Herzog et al. (2013) study looks at the beliefs and values of the healthcare providers. It turns out educating the healthcare providers and evaluating their attitudes towards vaccination can be helpful in many ways. For instance when the HCWs are motivated about the importance of vaccination, they go the extra mile to make sure that vaccination procedure is done. The limitation of this study is that the beliefs and attitudes keep changing and it is hard to develop a longitudinal study in this regard. The conclusion given by Herzog et al. (2013) is that the values and beliefs of HCWs greatly affect their intentions to vaccinate the populace. A medical ‘registry’ is where records about vaccination programs are kept. Linkins et al.’s (2006) evaluation that less than 10% of the parents are informed of the registries in their communities shows how important it is for the HCWs to be highly motivated and spread the awareness. The results show that even if the parents were not aware of vaccination registries in their areas, despite the fact that majority were supportive of the vaccination process. Spreading the awareness of vaccinations and immunizations is necessary. When people in a community are vaccinated, it is hard for an epidemic to spread (Webb, 2008). However, once the disease is sufficiently controlled, it is still the job for the HCWs to complete the vaccination program. Vaccination is a not really a cure but a preventive measure. People travel to places that have epidemics all the time; therefore, it is always wise to get vaccinated. Brousseau et al. (2010), looks at the feedback process for HCW and their clinics and looks into the effectiveness of it. Delayed immunization and improved VC are some of the suggestions for making the vaccination program more effective. From all the studies discussed in this paper, there is hardly any indication of more research or creating a better vaccine, the emphasis has remained on the attitudes and belief systems of the stakeholders. These are the factors that truly decide the successful completion of a vaccination program. References Brousseau et al. “Feasibility and impact of providing feedback to vaccinating medical clinics: evaluating a public health intervention”. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:750. Web. 15 Oct. 2013 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/750 Gowda et al. “Understanding attitudes toward adolescent vaccination and the decision-making dynamic among adolescents, parents and providers”. BMC Public Health. 2012, 12:509 Web. 15 Oct. 2013.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/509 Herzog et al. “Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? a systematic review”. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:154. Web. 15 Oct. 2013 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/154 Linkins at al. “Support for immunization registries among parents of vaccinated and unvaccinated school-aged children: a case control study”. BMC Public Health. 2006, 6:236. Web. 15 Oct 2013 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/236 Pandolfi et al. "The Effect of Physician’s Recommendation on Seasonal Influenza Immunization in Children with Chronic Diseases." BMC Public Health12.984 (2012): n. pag. BioMed Central. 2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. . Ruijs et al. “How orthodox protestant parents decide on the vaccination of their children: a qualitative study”. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:408. Web. 15 Oct. 2013 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/408 Webb, Sarah. "A shot of prevention: vaccines that teens need to stay healthy." Current Health 2, a Weekly Reader publication Sept. 2008: 12+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. Read More