Case Study: Analyzing Vaccination Hesitancy Factors and Solutions

This case study analyzes the factors contributing to vaccination hesitancy, focusing on a family's reluctance to vaccinate their child due to misinformation and ethical concerns. It explores the impact of this hesitancy, particularly the increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases, and the role of media in spreading misinformation. The case study delves into the ethical conflicts between beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy, examining the effectiveness of communication strategies employed by healthcare professionals. It proposes solutions emphasizing the importance of collaboration between clinicians and healthcare workers in promoting vaccination awareness and addressing parental concerns, ultimately aiming to improve immunization rates and protect public health. The analysis references key studies and reports from organizations like the WHO and research publications to support its findings and recommendations.

Running head: CAREER DEVELOPMENT
Vaccination
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
CAREER DEVELOPMENT
Case Study Analysis of Vaccination
Factors that have contributed to the problem
The main factors that have contributed towards the reluctance of Jenna and Chris
Smith in vaccinating their daughter Ana is lack of proper knowledge and rumors against
vaccination. According to reports, the majority of the parents residing in US belief that
vaccination cause autism. The main contributor behind this merging thought against the use
of vaccination is news media (Holton et al., 2012). The research carried out by Holton et al.,
2012 showed that 281 newspaper articles are centered on the controversial study, linking
measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination with autism disorder. However, as per the
evidence based meta-analysis of cohort and case control study done by Taylor, Swerdfeger &
Eslick (2014), vaccination is not associated with autism or autism spectrum disorder.
Whom does the problem issue affect?
The main victim behind the lack of awareness in regards to vaccination is Ana.
Coverage for majority of the vaccines remains high in US children who are between age
bracket of 19 to 35 months (Ventola, 2016). According to the reports, this unwillingness to
vaccinate their children has increased the rate of incomplete immunization among the
children of US (Gilbert et al., 2017). High immunization coverage is important to control and
eliminate vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) like measles, mumps, rubella, haemophilus
influenza, human papillomavirus and pertussis (Ventola, 2016). However, partial
immunization is more detrimental than no-immunization. This vaccine refusal along with
vaccine hesitancy has implicated outbreaks of invasive varicella, measles, pneumococcal and
pertusis. For example, it was declared that measles was declared eliminated from US in 2000
but caused a record outbreak in 2014 (23 outbreaks with 644 reported cases in 27 different
states) (Khabbaz et al., 2014). In 2015, United States observed a multistate measles outbreak.

2
CAREER DEVELOPMENT
It was assumed to originate from an overseas traveler and the majority of victims of measles
outbreak are unvaccinated (Campos-Outcalt, 2015).
Effectiveness of Communication
According to World Health Organization (WHO), communicating about safety in
regards to vaccination is always important to achieve an optimal success towards vaccination.
This communication mainly emphasize in explaining the benefits and risks of recommended
vaccines along with addressing the concerns in regards to persistent vaccination rumors. In
this case study, Dr. Angela Kerr has also taken active initiatives in communicating the needs
to vaccination to Ana’s parents. Dr. Kerr has highlighted importance of vaccine, how it as
saved lives from infectious disease along with the myth of vaccination in relation to autism.
The approach used by Dr. Kerr is ethical as it does not harm the autonomy of the parents as
making decision to vaccinate or not is solely a human right. However, it must also be taken
into consideration that such right of autonomy is not effecting the risk of other children (non-
malefieicnece).
Conflict of Ethical Principle and Effectiveness of the Approach Used
The main ethical principle presented in the case study is the conflict between
beneficence, non-maleficience and autonomy. Dr. Kerr here has respected the autonomy of
Ana’s parents, which states that it is the client’s freedom to decide what is good for him, in
this case since Ana is a child; it is the right for her parents to decide what is best for her.
However, while emphasizing on autonomy, the rights of non-maleficence is bridged as lack
of immunization to Ana can invite in serious health threats (Matheny Antommaria, 2013).
Moreover, act of beneficence instructs to do good or to provide benefit to the patient. Here
benefit of Ana is getting endangered due to lack of vaccination moreover, Ana is also
creating threat to the other children via increasing the predisposition of the spread of
contagious disease (herd immunity) (Matheny Antommaria, 2013).

3
CAREER DEVELOPMENT
Performance of Healthcare Professional
Dr. Kerr performed given active effort to raise awareness towards vaccination via
educating the parents of Ana about the importance of vaccination and the prevailing myths.
Dr. Kerr have also provided statistical data published by the federal government's Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Though efforts taken by Dr. Kerr is commendable but it has sudden pitfalls. Evidence
based research approach has found that vaccine hesitant parents my agree to vaccinate their
ward when they hear that infectious disease are leading cost of death like Haemophilus
influenza and streptococcus pneumonia are reason behind meningitis lethality or rotavirus is
likely to cause child death even after hospital admission (Ventola, 2016). Defining heath risks
along with the forecast of huge medical bills often provides parents with a clear image in
regards to had better assess their decision (Ventola, 2016).
Proposed solution in regards to ethical principle
In order to promote non-malefecience while not bridging the autonomy, both the
clinicians and the healthcare workers (HCW) must come forward. Clinicians
recommendations influence the rate of parental acceptance. However, HCW is also pivotal in
imparting quality information and proper advice to public in regards to vaccination
promotion. Interactive relationship among the parents and HCW can promote vaccination in
favor of child as work of Tafuri et al., (2014), has critique against effective communication,
stating it as doubtful and skeptical.
Role of the healthcare professional in regards to proposed solution
Here the role of health care professional will be to work in unison with HCW like
nurses in order to generate interpersonal relationship with the child’s parents and thereby
generating vaccination awareness (Tafuri et al., 2014).

4
CAREER DEVELOPMENT
Fostering professional collaboration
The proposed solution will foster collaboration among the doctors, nurses and other
health care providers to work in unison to promote vaccination awareness either via
campaigns, one-to-one interaction or via taking community meetings and via sharing live
success stories of vaccination (Tafuri et al., 2014).

5
CAREER DEVELOPMENT
References
Campos-Outcalt, D. (2015). Immunization update: what's changed, what's on the
way. Journal of Family Practice, 64(3), 177-180.
Gilbert, N. L., Gilmour, H., Wilson, S. E., & Cantin, L. (2017). Determinants of non-
vaccination and incomplete vaccination in Canadian toddlers. Human vaccines &
immunotherapeutics, 13(6), 1447-1453.
Holton, A., Weberling, B., Clarke, C. E., & Smith, M. J. (2012). The blame frame: Media
attribution of culpability about the MMR–autism vaccination scare. Health
communication, 27(7), 690-701.
Khabbaz, R. F., Moseley, R. R., Steiner, R. J., Levitt, A. M., & Bell, B. P. (2014). Challenges
of infectious diseases in the USA. The Lancet, 384(9937), 53-63.
Matheny Antommaria, A. H. (2013). An ethical analysis of mandatory influenza vaccination
of health care personnel: implementing fairly and balancing benefits and burdens. The
American Journal of Bioethics, 13(9), 30-37.
Tafuri, S., Gallone, M. S., Cappelli, M. G., Martinelli, D., Prato, R., & Germinario, C.
(2014). Addressing the anti-vaccination movement and the role of
HCWs. Vaccine, 32(38), 4860-4865.
Taylor, L. E., Swerdfeger, A. L., & Eslick, G. D. (2014). Vaccines are not associated with
autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort
studies. Vaccine, 32(29), 3623-3629.
Vaccine safety communication. (2017). World Health Organization. Retrieved 28 January
2018, from http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/communication/en/

6
CAREER DEVELOPMENT
Ventola, C. L. (2016). Immunization in the United States: recommendations, barriers, and
measures to improve compliance: part 2: adult vaccinations. Pharmacy and
Therapeutics, 41(8), 492.