scholarly journals Namere o vakcinisanju dece protiv kovida-19: verodostoјnost informaciјa i emocionalno-kognitivna pobuđenost

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaja Damnjanović ◽  
Zan Lep ◽  
Sandra Ilić
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
General Attitude ◽  
Parental Decision ◽  
Emotional Challenge ◽  
Life Circumstances ◽  
Vaccines For Children

The parental decision to vaccinate children presents a specific cognitive and emotional challenge, which is further aggravated by the conditions of the Kovid-19 epidemic and the general discourse on vaccination. It is estimated that the first vaccines for children against Covid-19 will be available in early 2022. In this study, we examined whether emotional-cognitive alertness (ECA) as a consequence of life circumstances due to the epidemic, the assessed credibility of information (CI) from various sources, which is the basis of trust, as well as the general attitude about vaccinating children unrelated to Covid-19, form intentions to vaccinate a child against Kovid-19. The results indicate that the general attitude towards vaccination and ECA are the strongest predictors of the intention to vaccinate a child. This intention is not influenced by the estimated CI representatives of public health, and the connection with the physicians' CI is negative. The epistemic authorities which traditionally represent one of the main supports for parents when deciding on vaccination have an altogether weaker impact than expected.

Especially for you

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Cribb
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Policy Reform ◽  
Personalised Medicine ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cultural Changes ◽  
Health Policy Reform ◽  
Life Circumstances ◽  
The One

This chapter discusses one of the most important ideas shaping health-policy reform and debate: personalisation. It should be said that there is nothing new about individualising or tailoring healthcare. Clinical healthcare, unlike some aspects of population or public health, is always already ‘targeted’ healthcare. However, both technological and cultural changes mean that possibilities and expectations of the degree of ‘tailoring’—to people's bodies, on the one hand, or to people's values and/or life circumstances, on the other—have substantially expanded and intensified. Depending upon how it is interpreted, personalisation can be presented as contributing to both medicalising and de-medicalising currents of healthcare change. It can be used to refer to closer attention and responsiveness to individual biology. It can also be used to refer to closer attention and responsiveness to individual biography. The chapter then presents a very rough distinction between ‘personalised medicine’ and ‘personalised care’.

scholarly journals Actionability of commercial laboratory sequencing panels for newborn screening and the importance of transparency for parental decision-making

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela M. DeCristo ◽  
Laura V. Milko ◽  
Julianne M. O’Daniel ◽  
Ann Katherine M. Foreman ◽  
Lonna F. Mollison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Newborn Screening ◽  
Gene List ◽  
Genomic Sequencing ◽  
Early Management ◽  
Parental Decision ◽  
Commercial Laboratory ◽  
Parental Decision Making ◽  
Genomic Screening

Abstract Background Newborn screening aims to identify individual patients who could benefit from early management, treatment, and/or surveillance practices. As sequencing technologies have progressed and we move into the era of precision medicine, genomic sequencing has been introduced to this area with the hopes of detecting variants related to a vastly expanded number of conditions. Though implementation of genomic sequencing for newborn screening in public health and clinical settings is limited, commercial laboratories have begun to offer genomic screening panels for neonates. Methods We examined genes listed on four commercial laboratory genomic screening panels for neonates and assessed their clinical actionability using an established age-based semi-quantitative metric to categorize them. We identified genes that were included on multiple panels or distinct between panels. Results Three hundred and nine genes appeared on one or more commercial panels: 74 (23.9%) genes were included in all four commercial panels, 45 (14.6%) were on only three panels, 76 (24.6%) were on only two panels, and 114 (36.9%) genes were listed on only one of the four panels. Eighty-two genes (26.5%) listed on one or more panels were assessed by our method to be inappropriate for newborn screening and to require additional parental decision-making. Conversely, 249 genes that we previously identified as being highly actionable were not listed on any of the four commercial laboratory genomic screening panels. Conclusions Commercial neonatal genomic screening panels have heterogeneous content and may contain some conditions with lower actionability than would be expected for public health newborn screening; conversely, some conditions with higher actionability may be omitted from these panels. The lack of transparency about how conditions are selected suggests a need for greater detail about panel content in order for parents to make informed decisions. The nuanced activity of gene list selection for genomic screening should be iteratively refined with evidence-based approaches to provide maximal benefit and minimal harm to newborns.

scholarly journals The Moral Calm Before the Storm: How a Theory of Moral Calms Explains the Covid-Related Increase in Parents’ Refusal of Vaccines for Children

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica McCrory Calarco
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Childhood Vaccination ◽  
Moral Panics ◽  
Vaccine Refusal ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Vaccines For Children ◽  
Vaccination Campaigns ◽  
Related Increase

In this study, I ask why, despite historically high rates of participation in childhood vaccination campaigns, large numbers of US parents are now planning to refuse or delay getting Covid-19 vaccines for their children. Combining insights from the theory of moral panics with pre-pandemic research on parents who refuse vaccines, I argue that to understand the high levels of concern about Covid-19 vaccines for children, we need a theory of “moral calms.” Drawing on interviews with 80 mothers of young children whose vaccine decisions I have tracked since 2018, I find that early public health and media messaging created a “moral calm” around children and Covid-19. These messages led many mothers—particularly mothers who perceived their families as “naturally healthy”—to see their children as being at low risk of contracting, transmitting, and suffering serious consequences from Covid-19. As a result, many mothers came to see Covid-19 vaccines as unnecessary, even if they had previously vaccinated their children. Seeing vaccines as unnecessary then made mothers more susceptible to misinformation about Covid-19 vaccine risks and ultimately weakened their desire to vaccinate their children as soon as possible. I conclude that moral calms can, ironically, lay the groundwork for moral panics. By weakening people’s concerns about a larger threat, they facilitate efforts to raise concerns about other smaller or nonexistent threats. I discuss how the theory of moral calms may help to explain other moral panics, and I consider the implications of these findings for efforts to reduce or prevent vaccine refusal.

Public Health and Newborn Hearing Screening

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Terrey Oliver Penn ◽  
Susan E. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document