Article review Assignment PDF
11 Pages2594 Words68 Views
Added on 2021-05-31
Article review Assignment PDF
Added on 2021-05-31
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: ARTICLE REVIEW1Article ReviewStudent’s NameUniversity
ARTICLE REVIEW2Article Review1.Essay organization The introduction of the article does not meet the academic standards of a good. The researcher is supposed to give an overview of the topic by providing the background informationof the topic. In this case the researcher was supposed to highlight the concept of immunization by giving a brief overview and then a thesis statement that the reader can easily understand (Maxwell, 2017). The author has given a brief background of the research but has given a brief about immunization tracking their history and their relevance today. However, this introduction fails to be conclusive since it lacks a thesis statement which is supposed to guide the reader in understanding what the whole article is about.The paragraphs in the whole task are not connected to each other making it difficult for the reader to establish the flow of the task. For example, in the second and third paragraph, the article jumps from MMR to autism without establishing a linking between the two paragraphs. Connection between paragraphs allows the reader to understand the body of the article and establish the main ideas in the study (Taylor, 2002). The article is supposed to give the reasons why children should be vaccinated but the researcher has mixed up paragraphs in a way that is difficult to understand because the article has focused more on MMR rather than the whole topic of vaccination. This is seen in the conclusion where the researcher supports the arguments made in the body of the article. However, the conclusion seems to be addressing the topic of why children should be vaccinated from MMR rather than the general topic of vaccination. In my opinion the researcher’s conclusion does not support the thesis statement which is missing in the study.
ARTICLE REVIEW32.Essay content The author has justified that there is no link between MMR and autism by that there is no adequate evidence that has been produced by researchers on the effect. This is justified by lack of rising cases of autism after the introduction of the vaccine in 1988. Honda, Shimizu, & Rutter (2005) study inidcates the unlikeliness of the vaccine causing autism. This is seen in the works ofRice, et al.. (2012) who concluded that there is established role of the vaccine in causing the disease. The author shared effectiveness of the anticampaign movement effectively used the vaccine misinformation by using the rising rate of autism that had sparked fear in public leading to discontinuation of the vaccine in Japan. The movements used the media and celebrities to aggravate the public concerns over the side effects of the vaccination. The fact that the disease had been eradicated in the population made it easy for the ani-vaccination group to convince the public against the vaccination. However, these groups should have used evidence from research studies to quote the figures of those affected and those against the vaccination. Leask, et al.. (2012) for a campaign to be effective, a clear framework of communicating with the public must be used to achieve positive response. The campaigns were ineffective since they were not effective. The author did not provide the way information should be assessed for reliability. However, the way to present information to the public is through documentation of research findings from scientific studies that used proper methodologies to draw conclusions (Garland, 2015). Scientific inquiry allows researcher to follow established rules of research to generate findings, analyze data and draw conclusions on the study topic. Such studies establish the factors
ARTICLE REVIEW4associated with the vaccine, provide scientific evidence of the facts, link the evidence to previousstudies and make conclusions through the analyzed data (Maxwell, 2017).3.Credible informationCredible sources are the ones that the researcher can trust and offer reliable information that supports the study. For a resource to be credible, it must be substantiated or vetted by scholarly communities. Such sources are not based on the ideas of the individual but rather evidence of what is being referred to in the source (Taylor, 2002). For example, a good source must link with the works of other writers as a way of adding on the existing knowledge or must be from a source that can be trusted like government websites. The resources used in the study are credible since they are based on data obtained from previous studies that establish a pattern inthe challenges witnessed in acceptance of MMR vaccines.Godlee F, Smith J, & Marcovitch H (2011). "Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and Autism was fraudulent". BMJ. 342:c7452 (jan05 1): c7452c7452.doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452 can be found online through searching the doi.Gupta S (1996). Immunology and immunologic treatment of autism. Proc Natl Autism Assn Chicago. 455-460 is available online through searching using the key word “autism and MMR”.Hideo Honda, Yasuo Shimizu, Michael Rutter (18 February 2005). “No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study”. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46 (6): 572–579. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425 is available online through searching the doi.Rubin, Benjamin (1980). "A note on the development of the bifurcated needle for
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Learning in health Sciences Assignment PDFlg...
|9
|2179
|379
THE ARTICLE CRITIQUElg...
|9
|2313
|22
Seven Features of Academic Writing and Its Importancelg...
|8
|1885
|140
Predictors of Hope Among Patients With Cancer in Jordan Article review 2022lg...
|6
|1649
|10
Equality in workplace and its importancelg...
|9
|2672
|98
Critical Analysis of Smeulers et al. (2014) Nurses' Experiences and Perspectives on Medication Safety Practiceslg...
|7
|1816
|455