Improving Immunization Rates through Community-Based Participatory Research
The purpose statement is the research on how immunization rates can be improved through community-based participatory research. On a nationwide scope, immunization for the antigen of DTaP/3HPV/1MMR/3HepB/3Hib/ 1VZV (Willis et al., 2016)among children between the ages of 19-35 is done sufficiently. Research shows that the coverage is up to 80% or above. However, with such good feedback, it is important to note that children from poorer family backgrounds experience low coverage. The main aim of the research is to use community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to bridge the gap of the children that is these immunizations.
Nursing-Sensitive Problem and The Population of Focus
The problem highlighted in this research is inadequate coverage when it comes to immunizations of children from poorer family backgrounds. The main population focus is that of the children from lower social-economic families. Upon realization that the children in lower social-economic families may be missing out on immunizations, the Community Health Improvement for Milwaukee Children (CHIMC) decided to intervene. Their main target was the children from poor families, and their target was to make sure that they get the necessary immunizations as is their right regardless of economic status.
Summary of The Article Findings Plus Nursing Strategies
To assess the effectiveness, CHIMC adopted a self-examination that seeks to adhere to the principles of CBPR. To reach the people, they implemented models with CHIMC that helped spread education as well as a social marketing campaign for immunization. This way, the people are all well informed on the importance of immunization regardless of whether they heard it from mainstream media or not. One of the main reasons children in poorer families may miss the immunization may be a lack of knowledge for the parents or guardians. With the strategies put in place, the education of the people will bring to their attention the importance of immunization as well as have them know of its availability.
The social marketing campaign was also another strategy used as an intervention. The social marketing campaign involved a survey that sought to find out how much people know about immunizations. The survey questions ask respondents about their knowledge of immunization, whether they know about the immunization, how they found out, and whether they believe the immunization was important for children. The survey creates a visual prompt that is less likely to be forgotten by parents hence helping towards ensuring that the children are immunized.
Another strategy was to analyze the PBC and find out what were the main barriers hindering immunizations. The results with PBC would reveal what areas need to be addressed in order t improve the process. The barriers could be issues with hospital personnel, lack of resources like lacking a medical cover, among others.
Findings
The findings of this research were recorded over six years. The research results show improvement in the number of immunizations proving the CHIMC research successful with detailed numbers and data. With all the many measures put in place and using the CBPR approach, the immunization disparities in children reduced significantly; one would even say they diminished completely.
Conclusion
The CHIMC was able to reduce the gap in the number of children that do not get immunized. This was achieved by combining multilayered interventions, curbing the issue from different perspectives, and ensuring that they bring out the best possible outcome. The immunization disparities in children were eliminated as a result.
References
Willis, E., Sabnis, S., Hamilton, C., Xiong, F., Coleman, K., Dellinger, M., Watts, M., Cox, R., Harrell, J., Smith, D., Nugent, M., & Simpson, P. (2016). Improving Immunization Rates Through Community-Based Participatory Research: Community Health Improvement for Milwaukee’s Children Program. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 10(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2016.0009
