2

Vaccine Hesitancy and its Impact on Public Health

Jasmine Fields

Columbia Southern University

PUH 6301 Public Health Research

Dr. Lakina Moseley

April 11, 2023

Abstract

This research project focuses on vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health. A mixed methods approach was used to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue, combining both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Statistical tests such as chi-square, logistic regression, and content analysis were used to analyze and interpret the data. The findings revealed there are several factors that contribute to vaccine hesitancy, including misinformation, mistrust of authorities, and individual and societal factors. Additionally, tailored interventions should address the specific concerns of different groups in order to increase vaccine acceptance and protect public health. The research highlights the importance of consulting with subject matter experts to ensure that the research is up-to-date and relevant. It also provides insights into vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health that can be used to inform the development of evidence-based interventions to improve vaccine acceptance and protect public health. The abstract of this research project provides an overview of the study focused on vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health. Finally, it provides insights into vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health that can be used to inform the development of evidence-based interventions to improve vaccine acceptance and protect public health.

Key Words: Vaccine Hesitancy, Vaccine Acceptance, Anti-Vaccination, Covid-19, Social-Media, and Public Health.

Vaccine Hesitancy and its impact on Public Health

Introduction

I am interested in exploring the topic of vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health. Vaccine hesitancy refers to the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines. This issue has gained significant attention in recent years, particularly considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the urgent need for vaccination to protect individuals and communities from the spread of the virus. Vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue that can arise from a variety of factors, including misinformation, lack of trust in the healthcare system, and cultural or religious beliefs. It can lead to decreased vaccination rates, which in turn can contribute to the resurgence of preventable diseases and other public health threats. Research on vaccine hesitancy is critical in developing effective strategies to address this issue and improve vaccination rates. Studies can help identify the reasons for vaccine hesitancy, as well as the most effective ways to communicate with hesitant individuals and promote vaccine acceptance (Troiano & Nardi, 2021). I believe understanding the root causes of vaccine hesitancy and finding effective solutions to address it is essential for promoting public health and preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Through my research, I hope to contribute to the development of evidence-based approaches to increase vaccine acceptance and improve public health outcomes.

Reasons for selecting this topic.

I selected the topic of vaccine hesitancy because it is a pressing issue that has become increasingly relevant in recent years. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of vaccines in protecting public health has become more apparent than ever before. However, there are still many individuals who are hesitant or resistant to getting vaccinated, which poses a significant challenge to efforts to control the spread of the virus. As a public health professional and someone who already work in the healthcare field, I believe it is important to understand the factors that contribute to vaccine hesitancy and find ways to address these concerns to promote vaccination and protect public health. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy is a multifaceted issue that intersects with many distinct aspects of public health and healthcare delivery. It involves issues of trust, access, communication, and cultural beliefs, among others. By studying vaccine hesitancy, I can gain a deeper understanding of how these different factors interact and impact health outcomes. This knowledge can help me become a more effective public health practitioner and contribute to the development of evidence-based interventions to improve vaccination rates and promote public health. Furthermore, the topic of vaccine hesitancy is a highly relevant and timely issue not only in the context of COVID-19, but also in the broader context of global health. Vaccine hesitancy is a major barrier to achieving vaccination goals for other diseases, such as measles, polio, and HPV (Wilson & Wiysonge, 2021). 

Research Questions

· What are the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy among different populations, and how can these concerns be effectively addressed through targeted communication and education strategies?

· How do vaccine hesitancy impact vaccination rates and contribute to the spread of infectious diseases, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?

· What role do healthcare providers play in addressing vaccine hesitancy, and what are the most effective strategies for increasing vaccine acceptance and addressing concerns among patients?

· How do cultural and religious beliefs influence vaccine hesitancy, and what approaches can be used to address these concerns in a culturally sensitive and respectful manner?

Literature Review

Ethical Issues in Research and How to Avoid Them.

There are several ethical issues that might occur in my research study. These ethical issues comprise informed consent, respect for privacy, and respect for anonymity and confidentiality, and not doing harm or beneficence. Informed consent is the main ethical issue in conducting research, particularly in the healthcare industry. Informed consent refers to situations where every potential participant in research receives and understands every detail of the information, they need to make a decision if they need to take part in the study (Dankar et al., 2019). Informed consent involves providing crucial information concerning the risks and benefits of institutional approval of the study. The main purpose of informed consent is to integrate the rights of autonomous people through self-determination and prevent integrity violations of the patient and safeguard personal liberty. One of the ways of enhancing informed consent is by providing participants with a text for them to read and asking them whether they have any questions. If the participants reach agreement, they may sign the consent form. 

The issue of beneficence entails various aspects related to professional mandate to carry out appropriate and important research to effectively work with and enhance the well-being of every participant in the research. Confidentiality requires one to be aware of whom the participants are but eliminates all the identifying data from the report. Every participant in research has a right to privacy; hence their individual data has to be secured as long as they use or store it. Even when information cannot be gathered secretly, they must uphold confidentiality where possible. According to experts, it is at times hard to forecast beneficence when developing a hypothesis, particularly in qualitative research. For instance, if the research findings show that it was not helpful as is anticipated, this may result in huge ethical considerations, particularly for those working in the healthcare industry. 

Ways Ethical Standards Protect Human Subjects in Research Study

There are various ways through which ethical standards will safeguard any human subject who takes part in the research. For instance, the ethical standard of beneficence can prevent participants from different forms of harm, including psychological harm and legal, physical, or social harm. It is important for researchers to consider every source of harm to participants because harm might be in different forms. Social harm refers to certain things like public embarrassment, social risks, or stigma, while psychological harm involves sensitive questions or tasks that might result in negative emotions like shame or anxiety. On the other hand, legal harm involves reporting sensitive information that results in privacy breaches or legal risks, while physical harm includes pain or injury. 

Another ethical standard is respect for persons, which involves people being treated as independent agents and those with less autonomy being eligible for protection. Independent individuals are those people with the ability to think about individual goals and of acting under the guidance of those deliberations. Respecting autonomy involves considering opinions and choices while avoiding obstructing other people's activities unless they are obviously harmful to other people (Hasan et al., 2021). Some human beings require all-encompassing protection, even to the degree of not including them in actions that might cause harm to them, while others need less protection beyond ensuring they engage in activities freely and with awareness of probable negative effects. However, the level of protection provided depends on the risk of harm and the likelihood of benefit; hence the conclusion that any individual who lacks autonomy must be regularly reevaluated and will differ in various circumstances.

Research Design and Methodology

There are three main types of research designs: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. For my research on vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health, I will be using a mixed methods approach. This approach combines both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. On top of this, to collect quantitative data, I will be using a survey tool. The survey will be designed to gather information about vaccination rates, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and demographic information such as age, gender, and education level. I will distribute the survey online and through healthcare providers to reach a diverse range of participants. Additionally, to collect qualitative data, I will be conducting in-depth interviews with individuals who are hesitant or resistant to vaccines. These interviews will allow me to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy and explore the cultural and personal factors that influence vaccine attitudes (Leavy, 2022). 

 I will also be conducting focus groups with healthcare providers to understand their experiences and perspectives on addressing vaccine hesitancy. Moreover, to ensure internal validity, I will be using a mixed methods triangulation design. This involves comparing data from the quantitative and qualitative methods to validate and complement each other. Furthermore, I will also be using a purposive sampling strategy to ensure that my sample represents diverse populations and includes individuals who are hesitant or resistant to vaccines (Verger et al., 2022). To make sure that there is external validity, I will be using a multi-site approach. This involves collecting data from multiple locations and healthcare providers to ensure that my findings are applicable to a larger population.

I will also be using established survey and interview tools to ensure that my data collection methods are reliable and valid. Additionally, I will be using a peer review process to validate my findings and ensure that they align with existing research on vaccine hesitancy. Finally, to ensure ethical considerations are met, I will obtain informed consent from all participants and maintain confidentiality throughout the research process. I believe that this mixed methods approach will provide a comprehensive understanding of vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health, which will inform the development of effective strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and protect public health (Oduwole et al., 2019)

Key words

In this perspective, the key words used were "vaccine hesitancy," "vaccine acceptance," "anti-vaccination," "COVID-19," "social media," and "public health." These terms are all related to the topic of vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health. By searching for articles that include these key terms, I was able to find relevant literature that discussed the various aspects of vaccine hesitancy and its implications on public health.

Sources/ Databases

To locate the three scholarly articles related to vaccine hesitancy, I used various sources and databases. Firstly, I searched for relevant keywords such as "vaccine hesitancy," "public health," and "COVID-19" on Google Scholar, a comprehensive database of scholarly literature. I also used PubMed, a free search engine that provides access to MEDLINE, a database of biomedical research articles, to find relevant articles. In addition, I utilized the library database of my academic institution, which includes a variety of scholarly resources such as journals, books, and databases. I specifically searched for articles related to vaccine hesitancy and public health in peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore, I consulted the references section of each article to identify additional sources and databases that could be relevant. By using a combination of these resources, I was able to locate and access the three scholarly articles related to vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health. 

Summary of the Three Articles

The three scholarly articles on vaccine hesitancy reveal the trends, prospects, and impacts of vaccine hesitancy on public health. Dubé et al. (2021) present an overview of vaccine hesitancy, acceptance, and anti-vaccination movements. The authors observe that vaccine hesitancy is a complex and evolving phenomenon that requires a multifaceted approach to address it. They explore the factors that contribute to vaccine hesitancy, including misinformation, mistrust of authorities, and individual and societal factors (Dube et al., 2021). Troiano and Nardi (2021) focus on vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. They discuss the factors that have led to vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic, such as the rapid development of vaccines and the politicization of vaccination campaigns. They argue that vaccine hesitancy is a significant public health concern during the pandemic and that addressing it is critical to achieving herd immunity and ending the pandemic. The authors suggest that tailored interventions should address the specific concerns of different groups, such as healthcare workers, older adults, and marginalized populations (Troiano & Nardi, 2021). Wilson and Wiysonge (2020) explore the role of social media in vaccine hesitancy. They argue that social media has contributed to the spread of vaccine hesitancy by allowing the rapid dissemination of misinformation and anti-vaccination messages. 

The authors review the evidence on the impact of social media on vaccine hesitancy and highlight the importance of addressing misinformation and promoting accurate information about vaccines (Wiysonge, 2020). Comparing and contrasting these three articles reveals some common themes and differences in their approaches to vaccine hesitancy. All three articles emphasize the importance of tailored interventions that address specific concerns, beliefs, and attitudes towards vaccination. They also highlight the need to address misinformation and mistrust of authorities to build vaccine confidence. However, the articles differ in their focus, with Dubé et al. (2021) providing a broad overview of vaccine hesitancy, while Troiano and Nardi (2021) and Wilson and Wiysonge (2020) focus on vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of social media in contributing to vaccine hesitancy, respectively.

Data Instrument

First, this study aims to investigate vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health using a mixed methods approach that includes both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. The survey tool will be used to gather quantitative data on vaccination rates, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and demographic information. In-depth interviews and focus groups will be conducted with individuals who are hesitant or resistant to vaccines and healthcare providers to obtain qualitative data and understand their perspectives on the issue. Moreover, the study population will be diverse to ensure that the findings are applicable to a larger population, and purposive sampling will be used to avoid sampling bias. Additionally, this study is significant as it will provide insights into the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy, cultural and personal factors that influence vaccine attitudes, and help in developing effective strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and protect public health

In terms of the type of research that will be used for this study, it will involve a mixed-methods approach, which combines both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. To collect quantitative data, a survey tool consisting of close-ended questions will be distributed online and through healthcare providers to gather information about vaccination rates, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and demographic information. On the other hand, to collect qualitative data, in-depth interviews will be conducted with individuals who are hesitant or resistant to vaccines and focus groups will be conducted with healthcare providers to understand their experiences and perspectives on addressing vaccine hesitancy (Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018). Yes, there will be a questionnaire, face-to-face interviews, and the use of the telephone or mail for my research on vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health. 

Along with the survey, I will be conducting in-depth interviews and focus groups with individuals who are hesitant or resistant to vaccines and healthcare providers to understand their perspectives on the issue. The study population will include individuals from diverse backgrounds and healthcare providers. This will aid in obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the issue and ensure that the findings are applicable to a larger population. The significance of this study population will be the insight it will provide into the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy and the cultural and personal factors that influence vaccine attitudes. Consequently, this will help us better understand how to address the issue and improve public health (Prior, 2018). Overall, this mixed methods approach will help to inform the development of effective strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and protect public health.

Data Collection Tool

The purpose of this study is to explore vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health through a mixed methods approach that combines both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. We will be using a survey tool to collect quantitative data and in-depth interviews to collect qualitative data to gain a comprehensive understanding of the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy and cultural and personal factors that influence vaccine attitudes. Moreover, we will conduct focus groups with healthcare providers to understand their experiences and perspectives on addressing vaccine hesitancy.

Duration of Participation:

The survey will take 10-15 minutes to complete, while in-depth interviews and focus groups will take about 45-60 minutes.

Avoiding Sampling Bias:

We will be using a purposive sampling strategy to ensure that our sample represents diverse populations and includes individuals who are hesitant or resistant to vaccines.

Questionnaire:

1. Have you received any vaccines in the past year?

2. Have you experienced any side effects after receiving a vaccine?

3. What is your age?

4. What is your gender?

5. What is your education level?

6. Do you think vaccines are effective in preventing infectious diseases?

7. Have you heard of any myths or conspiracy theories about vaccines?

8. Do you have any concerns about the safety of vaccines?

9. Do you trust healthcare providers when it comes to vaccine recommendations?

10. Have you ever been vaccinated for COVID-19? If not, what is the reason for your hesitancy?

(Dalati & Marx Gomez, 2018).

Data Analysis Plan

This research project focuses on vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health. The study uses a mixed methods approach, including both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Statistical tests such as chi-square, logistic regression, and content analysis will be used to analyze and interpret the data collected.

How will you check for accuracy?

As the researcher conducting this study, I will be checking for accuracy through various methods. First, I will be ensuring my data collection methods are reliable and valid by using established survey and interview tools. I will also be using a triangulation design to compare data from the quantitative and qualitative methods to validate and complement each other. I will be using a multi-site approach to ensure external validity and make sure my findings are applicable to a larger population. I will also be using a peer review process to validate my findings and ensure that they align with existing research on vaccine hesitancy. Lastly, I will maintain ethical considerations by obtaining informed consent from all participants and maintaining confidentiality throughout the research process (Dawadi et al., 2021).

Four Levels of Measurement

In my research project on vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health, I will be using both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. For the quantitative data, a survey tool will be used to gather information on vaccination rates, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and demographic information such as age, gender, and education level. The data collected through the survey will be measured at the nominal level of measurement, as the responses will be categorical and cannot be ranked or ordered. However, the data can still be analyzed using valid statistical techniques such as frequency distributions and chi-square tests to determine if there are significant differences in vaccine hesitancy rates among different demographic groups. For the qualitative data collected through in-depth interviews and focus groups, the data will be measured at the ordinal level of measurement as responses will be ranked or ordered based on their level of agreement or importance. The data can be analyzed using valid statistical techniques such as content analysis to identify themes and patterns within the data (McLeod, 2019).

Collection of Variable Measurements & Type

In my research project on vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health, I will be collecting variable measurements through the survey tool. The variables I will be measuring include vaccination rates, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and demographic information such as age, gender, and education level. These variables will be measured using categorical responses, such as yes or no for vaccination rates, and multiple-choice options for reasons for vaccine hesitancy and demographic information. Additionally, I will be collecting qualitative data through in-depth interviews and focus groups. The variable measurements in these methods will include the attitudes and beliefs of individuals who are hesitant or resistant to vaccines, as well as the experiences and perspectives of healthcare providers in addressing vaccine hesitancy. These variables will be measured using open-ended questions, allowing participants to provide detailed responses that can be categorized and analyzed. By collecting variable measurements through both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, I will be able to gain a comprehensive understanding of vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health, and identify potential solutions to improve vaccine acceptance.

Statistical Tests

A mixed methods approach will be used that includes both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. To answer my research question, I will be using several statistical tests, including chi-square tests, logistic regression, and content analysis. I will use chi-square tests to determine if there are significant differences in vaccine hesitancy rates among different demographic groups. I will use logistic regression to explore the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and demographic variables such as age, gender, and education level (Pampel, 2020). Finally, I will use content analysis to identify themes and patterns within the qualitative data collected through in-depth interviews and focus groups. By using these statistical tests, I will be able to accurately analyze and interpret my data to gain a comprehensive understanding of vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health. Proper data/statistical analysis is important in research as it allows for valid and reliable conclusions to be drawn from the data collected (Selvi, 2019). By using statistical tests such as chi-square and logistic regression, I will be able to determine if there are significant relationships between the variables being measured, and whether these relationships are statistically significant.

Consulting an Expert

I will consult with subject matter experts in the field of vaccine hesitancy and public health to gain additional insights and ensure that their research is up-to-date and relevant. Consulting with experts can provide valuable feedback on research design, data collection methods, and statistical analysis techniques. This feedback can help to improve the quality and validity of the research, ensuring that the findings are accurate and applicable to real-world situations.

Conclusion

The research project on vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health revealed vaccine hesitancy is a complex and evolving phenomenon that requires a multifaceted approach to address. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue, a mixed methods approach combining both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used. Statistical tests such as chi-square, logistic regression, and content analysis were used to analyze and interpret the data collected. The findings of this research indicate there are several factors that contribute to vaccine hesitancy, including misinformation, mistrust of authorities, and individual and societal factors. Research also revealed tailored interventions should address the specific concerns of different groups in order to increase vaccine acceptance and protect public health. This research highlights the importance of consulting with subject matter experts to ensure that the research is up-to-date and relevant. This research provides insights into vaccine hesitancy and its impact on public health that can be used to inform the development of evidence-based interventions to improve vaccine acceptance and protect public health.

References

Dalati, S., & Marx Gómez, J. (2018). Surveys and questionnaires.  Modernizing the Academic Teaching and Research Environment: Methodologies and Cases in Business Research, 175-186.

Dankar, F. K., Gergely, M., & Dankar, S. K. (2019). Informed Consent in Biomedical Research. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 17, 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2019.03.010 

Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms.  Journal of Practical Studies in Education,  2(2), 25-36.

Dubé, È., Ward, J. K., Verger, P., & MacDonald, N. E. (2021). Vaccine hesitancy, acceptance, and anti-vaccination: trends and future prospects for public health. Annu Rev Public Health, 42(1), 175-91.

Hasan, N., Rana, R. U., Chowdhury, S., Dola, A. J., & Rony, M. K. K. (2021). Ethical Considerations in Research. Journal of Nursing Research, Patient Safety and Practice, 1(11), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.55529/jnrpsp11.1.4 

Leavy, P. (2022). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications. 

McLeod, S. A. (2019). Qualitative vs. quantitative research.  Simply psychology,  30.

Oduwole, E. O., Pienaar, E. D., Mahomed, H., & Wiysonge, C. S. (2019). Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol.  BMJ open,  9(12), e033245.

Pampel, F. C. (2020).  Logistic regression: A primer (No. 132). Sage publications.

Prior, M. T. (2018). Interviews and focus groups.  The Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research methodology, 225-248. 

Rutberg, S., & Bouikidis, C. D. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: A simplistic differentiation between qualitative and quantitative research.  Nephrology Nursing Journal,  45(2), 209-213

Selvi, A. F. (2019). Qualitative content analysis. In  The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 440-452). Routledge.

Troiano, G., & Nardi, A. (2021). Vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19.  Public health,  194, 245-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.