Deaths among Children without Immunizations
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Deaths among Children without Immunizations
Article One Summary
In the article “Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, And the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases”[E M1] , Omer , Salmon, Orenstein, Dehart, and Halsey (2009) argued that vaccines are among the most successful prevention alternatives that could be used by patients. Nonetheless, the success of an immunization initiative relies heavily on the rates of acceptance and geographical coverage. An immunization campaign in all the regions of the United States is a necessary prerequisite for ensuring that all the children and other beneficiaries are effectively protected. However, solid evidences showed that people deliberately rejected vaccines across the whole country. This negative attitude was registered in specific geographic areas, and the phenomenon was responsible for outbreaks, as highlighted in the article, where the authors reported that children that were excluded from school immunization programs displayed a high susceptibility to conditions such as measles and pertussis (2009). They also noted that such infected children could transmit a disease to other younger children that are yet to be vaccinated. Other children that are at risk include those who have medical complications and those that did not exhibit sufficient immunologic response. The role played by clinicians is also highlighted, as they can have a significant influence towards changing the decisions made by parents as far as their children’s health is concerned. In the article, the authors covered the way in which healthcare providers emerged as the most reliable and accessible source of immunization for the young. Many other tertiary healthcare institutions failed to qualify because of various reasons including inaccessibility, poor service delivery and incompetent staff. After the analysis of the sources of immunization, the article focused on examining a survey where the participants included parents of both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.Omer et al. (2009) studied the current state of the distribution of vaccines and revealed that while most programs were running, they were less effective in terms of their reach. Some clinicians had even discontinued such programs mainly because of the low economic benefits. Several public and private healthcare institutions already offered such services for newly born children. At the very least, most establishments considered other coercive options for parents who denied their children access to vaccines, including the threaten of canceling their services to uncooperative parents (Omer et al., 2009). This choice, however, would be unethical and it would violate the American rights. Omer et al. developed a proposal aimed at addressing the issue of vaccine refusal by allowing clinicians to consider parental concerns and explain to them the risks of avoiding vaccines.
This specific article was qualitative, as clearly shown in the use of descriptive language throughout the paper. The case study described the situation concerning the distribution of immunizations and the concurrent response among parents and children. The authors chose to explain the occurrence and implications of poor immunization attitudes within the urban areas. The sample size used for the study was approximately 200 respondents who were stakeholders in the health sector. The study participants ranged from community health works, administrators and nurses to other professionals within the industry. The sample frame was limited to the health workers operating within public schools.
Article Two Summary
The article “What Is Your Research Question? An Introduction to the PICOT Format for Clinicians” by Riva, Malik, ,Burnie, ,Endicott, and Busse, (2012) focused on the existing procedures that allowed nurses to carry out effective diagnoses into the different conditions affecting patients. In the introductory paragraph, the authors concentrated on clinicians and their experiences while practicing within the healthcare setting. The author noted that many of these health practitioners held the desire to pursue additional research that would academically prove their anecdotal experiences. The possibility of adding more knowledge to the nursing profession and the more significant healthcare system is convincing. The article moved to focus on the alternatives available to practitioners as far as research is concerned. The nurses need to collaborate with experienced researchers and share their concepts in a study. These qualified scholars, in turn, focus on examining the research questions. The authors noted that an inability to understand the most effective way to respond limits the number of interactive sessions between clinicians and researchers.
Riva et al. (2012) argued that this was a stumbling block that has reduced the contact in the research community. In the article, it was estimated that approximately 7% of the members of the nursing profession are actively involved in research. The authors argued that this low involvement could be caused by practitioners’ apparent significance of research as well as differing levels of research competence. Nonetheless, rising calls for evidence-based approaches across the healthcare continuum place pressure on all clinicians to ground their decisions on the latest scientific evidence. Riva et al. (2012) noted that the lack of clinician contribution in research has the possible effect of restricting advancement and new developments for the discipline. Additionally, the article claimed that the limited presence of clinician involvement in research complicated the transformation of study results into practical settings. Part of the paper quoted the Canadian Institute of Health Research as contributors to the study and promoters of the concept of integrated knowledge translation as a procedure that incorporates a partnership between researchers and consumers across different stages of a research project.
Finally, Riva et al. (2012) proceeded to propose a solution to mend the relationship between clinicians and researchers. The writers identified the current role of clinicians as that of assisting in the development of a research question, analyzing the outcomes, and translating research findings into real-world solutions. The article noted that the joint effort between clinicians and researchers raised the possibilities that research efforts can be directly implemented in practice. This paper was correlational in nature. The authors sought to understand the relationship between adopting elements of research among nurses and improved service delivery as far as handling PICOT questions was concerned. The study sample was restricted to clinicians who were actively engaged in their studies.
References
Omer, S. B., Salmon, D. A., Orenstein, W. A., Dehart, M. P., & Halsey, N. (2009). Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(19), 1981-1988.
Riva, J. J., Malik, K. M., Burnie, S. J., Endicott, A. R., & Busse, J. W. (2012). What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 56(3), 167.
[E M1]For this and other in text citations, see: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l2NzYldJKVAgN_tkfZMm4gB6jntLevwu/view