This paper examines the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's role in promoting vaccine schedules and herd immunity among U.S. citizens. It discusses the CDC's function as an educator and information provider for both healthcare professionals and the general public. The paper then considers the responsibilities of an advanced practice nurse in delivering balanced, evidence-based immunization information to patients, including how to address concerns stemming from the debunked Andrew Wakefield study. Ethical considerations around respecting patient beliefs and presenting multiple perspectives are also addressed.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) plays an important role in promoting herd immunity and vaccine schedules for U.S. citizens. As the organization with the institutional capabilities and public visibility to advance vaccination, the CDC publishes information for healthcare professionals regarding vaccination and immunization literature. It also offers material for ordinary citizens and patients who want to learn more about the subject ("Immunization Schedules," 2018). On its website, the CDC provides answers to common questions that people can use to feel more confident about getting vaccinated ("Why Immunize?," 2018). In this way, the CDC acts as both an educator and a provider of vaccination information for the general public.
As an advanced practice nurse, ensuring that patients receive accurate and balanced information about vaccinations and immunizations is a core responsibility. This can be accomplished by having relevant literature readily available in print format and by directing patients to reliable online resources — such as the CDC's immunization pages — where they can explore the subject further. Providing multiple sources and perspectives allows patients to feel empowered rather than directed toward a single narrative.
One important aspect of patient education involves addressing concerns that stem from the paper by Andrew Wakefield, which falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism. Rather than dismissing such concerns, nurses can present patients with peer-reviewed research — such as the study by Rao and Andrade (2011) — that offers the other side of the story. This approach respects patients' beliefs and does not dismiss their fears out of hand. The most ethical course of action is to understand the perspective from which a patient is coming and to provide information that invites them to consider an alternative viewpoint. It is never appropriate to falsify information or selectively present data to prove a point, and no medical researcher should condone such behavior. Ultimately, the goal is to empower patients to make informed decisions based on a full and honest picture of the available evidence.
Immunization Schedules. (2018). CDC. Retrieved from
"Countering misinformation while respecting patient beliefs"
You’re 88% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.