what is a thematic analysis the following data? Participants’ responses to the question: How should

what is a thematic analysis the following data? Participants’ responses to the question: How should public health practitioners deal with parents who refuse immunization for their children? Public health practitioners should deal with parents who refuse immunization for their children by educating them on the benefits of vaccination. The first and most important step is to listen to parents’ concerns without judgment to build trust and understand the parent’s decision. After that, practitioners should address misinformation, highlight the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases, and talk about the role of herd immunity in protecting vulnerable populations. Practitioners could also collaborate with healthcare providers, community leaders, and policymakers to help create policies/programs that help advocate and educate for vaccines. From my research, the main reason that parents elect not to vaccinate their children is due to the misinformed belief that vaccines cause autism and developmental disorders. Furthermore, parents often have these opinions on vaccinations due to mistrust or lack of confidence in the entity that is to provide the vaccine. When public health institutions do not have the trust of families, they often turn to the internet for “information” which is not always factual. Naturally, it makes sense that the best approach in dealing with parents who refuse to immunize their children is to regain their trust and confidence. Consulting with parents in a personal way has been shown to foster positive opinions regarding vaccines. This should always be done respectfully and without coercion. The parents must decide for themselves. It can be challenging, fighting against emotions and preexisting biases but, I do think that even the most skeptical will see that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. I also think that it is important to bring up the harms of not vaccinating children. Again, this needs to be handled delicately, as the parents could easily be turned away but, it is worth explaining the reason that polio has been wiped out, why measles outbreaks are so rare, and why scrapes and scratches are often not serious are all thanks to vaccines. While it is unethical to usurp someone’s autonomy over their body or that of their dependents, it raises the question on what impacts the freedom’s of one individual have on the much larger population. Immunizations should be required for some institutions like public schools and universities and locales that have a high proportion of immunocompromised like nursing homes. For those who have reason to not become immunized, alternative options should be made available like masking, social distancing, etc. If the aim of the public health practitioner is to encourage parents to immunize their children, strong efforts should be made to combat misinformation and disinformation. The spread of nonfactual “scientific” literature/opinion can be incredibly difficult to distinguish especially to a parent who has been made fearful of health institutions through the mongering techniques of predatory anti-intellectual spaces. Approaching the parent and children with empathy, clear communication of health practices, and testimonials from trusted members of the community can help reduce the presence of anti-vaccination. Public health practitioners should begin by understanding the root of the parents opinions, approaching the conflict with an open mindset to learn where these opinions are stemming from. Practitioners should also be able to put themselves in the parents’ shoes before planning ways to address the issue. Understanding the roots of conflict serve as an important starting point before beginning to plan programs and interventions. “Public health practitioners should first acknowledge parents’ concerns about immunization for their children. They should address the misconceptions and work to combat the misinformation. Judging parents for not immunizing their children will create hostile interactions between public health practitioners. The next step should be to go over the many benefits of immunization. Reminding parents of the positive health outcomes of immunization could potentially persuade them. In practice, these can be executed through public health awareness campaigns and conversations at healthcare providers’ offices. However, in certain settings, there should be requirements for vaccinations such as schools and hospitals. It should be explained to these parents why these exist and that they are a place to protect those that are vulnerable including young children.” “While immunizations are essential and recommended for preventative care, especially in children, they cannot be forced upon anyone. However, they are still necessary to prevent diseases from severely affecting individuals or causing death. Public health practitioners should approach parents who refuse immunization for their children carefully. There are several ways health practitioners can try to persuade parents to accept immunization. These ways include: 1. Engaging in a comfortable conversation to listen and understand why parents may be hesitant, cautious, or blatant about not vaccinating their child. Additionally, the public health practitioner needs to be empathetic and nonjudgmental during that conversation so that the parents may be more comfortable or open to the idea of having their child immunized. 2. Building trust and educating the parents with known facts about the benefits of immunization and vaccination. With so many things going around and so much misinformation floating around on social media and so on, this is essential. First, it would be best to debunk the misinformation that is being spread by correcting them with the facts. Public health practitioners need to be able to effectively inform parents about the benefits of vaccinations, their effectiveness in the population, and how they help to limit the risks of catching preventative diseases like the flu. Furthermore, for parents to want to vaccinate their children, they need to be able to trust the system and the people promoting immunizations and vaccinations. Maybe it would be essential to have doctors, like pediatricians, for example, to explain the importance of providing immunizations for children. Those parents may be more likely to listen to them rather than to a public health practitioner because, in their eyes, they may see them as more credible. They may be more likely to vaccinate their child so they can build immunization for preventative diseases and limit the risk of obtaining serious consequences for not being vaccinated or immunized. 3. Lastly, if parents are still refusing immunization for their children for whatever reason, public health practitioners can direct them to websites from credible sources like the CDC, for example, so they can understand the importance of immunizations for their children and be persuaded that they are indeed safe. But if the parents are set on not having their children immunized or vaccinated, the best thing to do is to back off to prevent any type of unnecessary stress or anger and then come back to them again in the future. The goal is to educate, inform, and persuade, all while trying to build and maintain their trust. If they don’t trust you or find you to be too pushy, they are never going to go through with the immunization. Sometimes, dealing with parents who refuse immunizations requires a substantial amount of patience.” “There is a challenge for health practitioners that arises when parents refuse immunization for their children. These parents may have a plethora of reasons why they refuse immunizations for their children, including religious beliefs, misconceptions, and/or lack of information. The challenge arises when the parents’ beliefs prevent their children from receiving effective preventative measures. To work against this, health practitioners should adopt an approach away from being superficial, and work to understand the parents’ point of view and their reasoning behind it. This ground-level approach builds trust and comfortability between the parents and the health practitioners. After trust is established, the health practitioner can provide accurate information on the immunization and its effectiveness. While health practitioners provide accurate information and address misconceptions, the parents should be given the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind keeping their children unvaccinated. This conversation will not only allow the practitioner to understand the individual’s point of view but also make inferences about why others may avoid immunizations. However, the goal of this exchange is to get the parent to understand why it is important for their child to get immunized. To get this point across, practitioners should explain the potential consequences that may occur to their child if not immunized, and how this lack of initiative may not only affect their child’s health, but the health of others, including the parents themselves. Hopefully, this information will make the parent aware of the benefits of immunization and more inclined to have their child immunized. All in all, parents have their own opinions and have the right to do what seems right for their children, however, as a health practitioner it is essential to build rapport with the parent and relay accurate information allowing the parent to make an informed decision.” The first step to addressing parental refusal of immunization is to understand and acknowledge their concerns. If people feel heard, they may be more inclined to listen to the other point of view. The next step would be to present the facts in a way that is easy to make sense of. It is possible that parents may be hesitant to get their children vaccinated because they may not understand exactly what it does, potential side effects, etc. A great tool to share vaccination information is an infographic, which can be posted in public areas to spread awareness. “Public health practitioners should be sure they are practicing honest and informed conversations when speaking with parents who refuse immunization for their children. They should explain vaccine information in clear, easy to understand terms, so that the parents can get a true picture of the importance of vaccine use for preventable diseases, especially at a young and vulnerable age. They should do so by using credible sources and explaining the symptoms and negative health consequences their child may face if they acquire a disease. These conversations may be difficult, but they should not be held in a condescending or judgmental way. Public health practitioners should also hear out parents regarding any concerns or reasons they have for immunization refusal, and address misinformation quickly. After refusal, practitioners should inform parents about early symptom signs, so that they can recognize their child’s sickness fast, and get them treatment before the illness worsens. ” On the interpersonal scale, I think that it is very important for public health practitioners to be calm and patient with parents who refuse immunization for their children. Practitioners should take the time to talk with parents about each vaccination that their children require, how the vaccine is helpful, and the risks of not receiving the vaccine. They should also ask the parents for their rationale as to why they do not want their children to be immunized. Using their expertise on the subject, the public health practitioner should emphasize why this rationale is unfounded. On a broader scale, I feel that public health practitioners could be more intentional about communicating the risks associated with not receiving the proper immunizations. They could publicize the incidence rates of illnesses among vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children to demonstrate the enormous benefits of immunization. They should also communicate that much of the negative information being disseminated about vaccines has actually been disproved, like the Andrew Wakefield article about autism and the MMR vaccine. Public health practitioners should be empathetic and open-minded toward parents who refuse immunization for their children. Listening to the parents’ concerns can help public health practitioners be more mindful and understanding of them, which can then help to provide more information and address any misconceptions about immunization. Making sure to let them know of the benefits of immunization, and how it can outweigh their concerns on the risks can help reinforce the importance of immunization for their children and the parents can be more inclined to understand. Additionally, practitioners should be keeping in mind of respectful dialogue as well as culturally sensitive discussions to help build trust with the parents and have them become more opening with their stance. I think that they should work with physicians to maybe change the messaging around vaccination in places that parents frequent. A lot of people approach this topic and shame parents for not vaccinating their children. Instead of focusing on using shame and guilt, it should focus on the risks children face when they are unvaccinated. These risks are not just for the child’s health but also the social events they are able to attend. However, public health practitioners should attempt to conduct a community needs assessment before they change the messaging around vaccines. I think it is important to understand this community before implementing any changes. Not all parents and not all communities have the same needs, ideas, and beliefs regarding health. Public health practitioners should approach parents who are vaccine-hesitant with empathy and understanding. Practitioners should first seek out the reasoning as to why parents are choosing to not vaccinate their children in case the family has already had negative experiences with vaccines. Vaccine-hesitant parents simply want to keep their children safe from harm, and public health practitioners want the same, so it can be helpful to remind parents of this shared interest. Public health practitioners can often approach vaccine-hesitant parents with the “right-ing complex” where many feel they must teach their patients without building trust first. While a public health practitioner shouldn’t approach parents with an informational vaccine conversation, there should be effort in trying to educate parents on the benefits of vaccinating. Asking parents where they get their information from and trying to reach a point of understanding is a step towards building trust and hopefully promoting vaccinations. Public health practitioners can share the disadvantages of not having their children vaccinated, such as health risks. “I would say the best way that public health practitioners could deal with parents who refuse to get vaccinations for their children would be to identify the sources that have shaped these opinions that the parents have adopted. Then once you’ve identified these sources they should have prepared an explanation as to why these sources are not trustworthy and provide good science as we’ve learned in all of our Public Health courses to support the claims we’re making. So once we’ve identified the misinformation, we need to provide these parents with sources they can trust such as the CDC, NIH, etc. I think it would also be really important to bring in a health literacy aspect because you can’t just go out and tell people to read CDC and NIH which they may have been led to mistrust as well. We also can’t just tell people to read scientific papers and expect them to comprehend and retain, so there should be an effort to educate them on how to read these papers, or to at the least be able to break down an abstract. I also think that maybe this would be a good use of chat GBT, where we could explain to parents that if they have a difficult time reviewing these papers or concepts that they might not fully understand, chat GBT may be able to break it down into simpler terms for them to digest.” Public health practitioners should educate parents who refuse immunizations for their children. However, they may be first-time parents who are cautious when it comes to their children. Therefore, they should empathize with the parents and listen to them while being understanding. Public health practitioners can provide the pros and cons of the immunization along with showing data that compare children with and without the immunization. With such data, myths may be debunked or provide parents with information they may not have known about. Additionally, when data are shown about other children they may also believe it more. It is important to listen to their side while reassuring them with the correct information.

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."