Posted: March 24th, 2023
Evidence-based literature provides useful information that can be applied to understand various topics of interest. The first step in completing my search on “the social trend away from childhood immunization and the reduced critical mass covered for illnesses such as measles” was identifying relevant databases. I used PubMed for this specific study. After visiting the site, I utilized keywords to search for topics that relate to childhood immunization or vaccination. I filtered the material by using other terms, such as resistance to immunization in the United States. Evidently, there was also a need to utilize materials that are up to date. Therefore, I used the “results by year” feature in the site to select the most recent articles.
Reference – Summary – Evaluate quality – Evaluate usefulness
This article analyzes immunization decisions among parents with children below the age of 7 years. A survey is utilized to examine their behavioral change towards immunization in 2012 and 2015. Six categories of responses to the practice are used, which include “received all vaccinations at the recommended time,” “had not,” “but actively working on catching up,” “delayed one or more but not all,” “delayed all and refused one or more but not all.” A web-based national poll is utilized to gather data on the expected responses. The researchers conclude that a notable variation in delay and refusal rates in parents with children aged 0-1 and 2-6 years is evident. These rates decline in the latter group. Discrepancies also exist in various part of the country. Results indicate increased acceptance and decline in refusal of immunization in the South. On the other hand, delay for vaccination increased in the Northeast part of the United States. The authors provide broad coverage of immunization trends between the two years. They also include control variables, such as race, household income, gender, education, and ethnicity, to identify the changes in parents’ decisions over two years. The comparison of different sets of data offers a comprehensive review that can be utilized in nursing practice. In addition, firsthand information is used to generate the findings of this study. This means that the research is free of biasness. The evidence provided in this paper has limited relevance to the national issue in the study. The authors focus mostly on trends in immunization decisions between two historical years, 2012 and 2014. This may not reflect current variations in childhood vaccination in the United States. Besides, sufficient discussion is lacking on social factors in the nation that may trigger a rise or fall in vaccination among children below the age of seven years. However, the article is easy to read and comprehend because authors use clear and straightforward language that students at all learning levels can understand. Statistical findings are also captured in well-labeled tables, which creates ease of use. The researchers also use other scholarly materials to reference their work. This provides a basis for their premise and support for their conclusions.
This paper summarizes existing research on immunization in the United States. The author addresses issues of vaccine coverage in children and adolescents. In part one of the article, the scholar focuses on matters of vaccination among children within the age of 6 months and 17 years. Ventola notes that there is an increase in vaccine hesitancy in the country. Six reasons for the social trend away from childhood immunization are discussed, including concerns about side effects, fear of autism, objection to the large number of injections, moral or religious grounds, and lack of access due to the cost and limited sources of information. Several health providers, community, and government-based interventions are also provided to improve immunization compliance. They consist of patient counseling, maximizing opportunities during patient visits, administering combination vaccines, improving access to vaccinations, use of EMRs, and practice alerts. Being a review, the author uses references from twenty different sources. Rather than reporting findings by other researchers, he synthesizes their work, making it more comprehensive and useful in nursing practice. In addition, each part of the author’s argument is adequately supported by the referenced materials. One of the limitations of this article is overreliance on secondary information, which may subject the work to potential biases that may have existed in previous research. This paper applies to my topic of discussion. The author makes several remarks on possible social trends against immunization. For instance, he mentions the existence of medical, religious, philosophical, and socioeconomic reasons. Ventola also briefly addresses the issue of reduced critical mass for measles and mumps, which is an area of interest. Apart from highlighting issues on childhood immunization, the researcher also provides recommendations on how the problem can be tackled. A significant number of these proposals, such as administering combined vaccination, are applicable in my clinical specialty area. The author divides his work into two parts, which makes it easy to select the most relevant material. The only useful section for my discussion is the first part, which covers childhood vaccination. The arrangement of concepts in the article, including subheadings, saves the time required to identify the key points.
This journal provides a summary of works related to vaccination in both Europe and U.S. The authors highlight some of the reasons for the societal shift from immunization. The arguments are grouped into four categories: philosophical, naturalistic, religious, and medical. The researchers also discuss sanctions used by governments for non-compliance, such as restrictions on child admission to primary and secondary schools as well as public and private childcare centers. Grzybowski and his colleagues also claim that the existing sanctions have failed to maintain a balance in patients’ autonomy and social security. Therefore, they propose an alternative solution that should involve transferring financial liability to individuals who fail to undergo immunization. They maintain that compliance with vaccination should be voluntary, but individuals should bear the consequences of their choices. The authors successfully convince the reader that vaccination refusal is indeed a trend in the contemporary world. This tendency is revealed after a comprehensive synthesis of research done by other scholars. Each claim made is supported by scholarly work, which makes the article reliable. In total, the authors use 34 references, including government websites and peer-reviewed articles. In addition to summarizing findings about vaccination in Europe and the United States, Gryzybowski and his associates also contribute valuable information on new ways of controlling resistance to immunization. They adequately support their proposal by highlighting its effectiveness over existing sanctions. This comprehensive review distinguishes their work from a mere synopsis of prior studies. The limitation of this paper is based on the authors’ overreliance on secondary data. This article is relevant to my topic. The authors broadly discuss issues of vaccination and current social trends away from childhood and adult immunization, which is part of my area of interest. They also briefly address matters related to re-occurrence of illnesses such as measles, which covers the second part of my subject on reduction in critical mass. Use of subtopics makes it easier to identify critical points in the article. This creates ease in the utilization of the paper by focusing on what applies to my topic. The language used is also simple and clear, which makes it easy to read and understand.
This article reviews previous literature on vaccine hesitancy. The authors categorize behaviors responsible for resistance to vaccination into three aspects: confidence, convenience, and complacency. Besides, the causes of hesitancy are presented in different groups, including environmental, agent, and host. Under each category, the scholars provide several examples, which are discussed in details. For instance, parent-provider relationship, school immunization requirements, social norms, collective values, policies, and media are addressed under environmental determinants. The authors also provide various strategies that can control the increasing trend away from immunization. They include transparency in matters of immunization programs, providing the society with updated information on new vaccines, listening to peoples’ concerns over such programs, and incorporating public views in immunization policies. This article adequately builds on the existing works by utilizing 57 references. Each citation is appropriately used to support the authors’ argument. One of the limitations of this paper is the lack of test data sets. The researchers fail to provide statistical data to convince the reader on the social trend away from immunization. The scholars’ focus is also too wide, which makes it difficult to determine the applicability of their arguments in my area of focus, United States. Although several materials have been used to support the review, many of them are outdated and may not reflect social trends in contemporary society. The selected paper has limited relevance to my topic. The authors mostly focus on matters of vaccine hesitancy in the world rather than specific geographical areas. However, comments made on the increasing trend towards resistance to immunization are pertinent to my topic. The authors’ concluding remarks on the need to understand health professionals’ doubts about some forms of vaccination also add vital information to my discussion. It answers the question of how national issues, such as doubts among nurses, affect vaccine administration during childhood. Each section of the article is clearly defined, which makes it easy to read. For instance, subtopics on the concept of vaccine hesitancy, determinants of the concept, and the way forward are evident. This arrangement creates ease in the selection of the most relevant areas of the article.
This paper investigates how ideology impacts the perception of vaccination in the United States. The researchers utilize an online survey through Mechanical Turk to gather data. Questions on the varying perceptions among liberals, moderates, and conservatives, regarding vaccination are used to guide the study. The relationship between ideology, actual, and perceived rates of consensus in regards to beliefs about immunization is also examined. A Social Relations Model (SRM) is used to facilitate assessment of different behaviors towards immunization, such as pro and anti-vaccination. Part of their conclusion is that political ideology influences peoples’ beliefs and perception about childhood vaccination. This means that decisions towards immunization vary among conservatives, moderates, and liberals. The findings also reveal significant ideological divergences among the three groups of Americans. For instance, liberals are more likely to support statements directed towards pro-vaccination compared to anti-vaccination. The authors provide adequately justified arguments. Each claim is supported by findings from the actual study and previous research conducted regarding immunization trends in the United States. This makes information from the article reliable and convincing to its readers. Evidence presented in the paper is also comprehensive. In addition to examining the major variables, such as ideology and perceived rates of consensus to immunization, the scholars also conducted a brief comparison of the data, which makes their work conclusive. One of the limitations of this paper is a lack of proposals on how to handle the social trend. The researchers acknowledge the prevalence of resistance to vaccination. However, they fail to provide strategies that can be utilized to control the situation, especially in nursing practice. Some of the references used in the study, such as Hinman (1999), are outdated and may not be valid in recent research on immunization. This paper wholly applies to my topic. It addresses an important aspect of health care: political ideology and its impact on peoples’ health. Most importantly, it facilitates my understanding of how these ideologies influence social trends away from childhood immunization. Concepts are well-organized in the article, including introduction, actual research, findings, and conclusions. This arrangement makes it easy to locate the basis for the scholars’ arguments.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.