UCB334 Moral Problems And Unethical Behaviors Discussion

UCB334 Moral Problems and Unethical Behaviors Discussion

Read the article then answer both questions below. One page of each section

Discussion Section One (week 6 readings)

Create a post and answer the questions below. Incorporate at least one principle from the Public Health Leadership Society’s code of conduct and any other relevant values. Also, include any facts, citing them.

What decision must be made? (This may be harder to define than you originally think.)

What are the one or more moral problems?

Who is the ultimate decision maker that will decide whether to enact a solution and provide the resources necessary for enactment?

Who, if anyone, can be an ally who can help persuade the ultimate decisionmaker to address the one or more moral problems?

order now

Thus far, who has the researcher involved in the process for critically examining the one or more moral problems (identify the types of people rather than naming specific individuals)? Do not identify the one or more allies here. For each type of person:

What is his/her organization (identify the type of organization rather than naming specific organizations)?

What has been his/her role in the process for critically examining the moral problem? Describe the role in terms of being a content expert or working team member.

What additional steps do you think the researcher should take before deciding whether to whistle blow to the public?

Then respond to at least 1 other classmate, posing a question or comment that substantively expands the discussion. Respond to a post with no replies before responding to a post with at least 1 reply.

Discussion section two:

The Social Ecological Model as a Framework for Determinants of 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Uptake in the United States

In the article by Kumar, Crouse, and Kim (2011), the researchers examined the SEM as a framework for influenza vaccine acceptance in 2009 H1N1. Social ecological model (SEM) assumes that individual behavior is shaped by factors at multiple levels, including institutional, community, and policy levels, as well as intrapersonal and interpersonal levels.

This study was conducted by a randomly selected sample of 3,689 adults aged 18 or older who were invited to participate in a web survey by Knowledge Networks. A total of 2,079 respondents completed the survey for a 56% completion rate. The questionnaire focused on attitudes and beliefs toward the 2009 H1N1 virus and the H1N1 influenza vaccine, past vaccine behavior, knowledge of membership in a priority group, and access to health insurance and health care. The researchers found that the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional levels significantly affect vaccine uptake.

Research on influenza vaccine:

Intrapersonal level:

Refers to attitudes and beliefs. Attitudes toward H1N1 vaccines, past vaccine behavior, and membership in groups considered a priority for vaccination.

People who trusted the government’s handling of the pandemic had 3.29 times the odds of having gotten the vaccine.

People believe getting the 2009 H1N1 vaccine is an effective way to prevent illness which is 3.25 times the odds that others have gotten the vaccine.

Interpersonal level:

Refers to social influence from friends and family and norms within social networks.

Friends/family who got the vaccine were not significantly more likely to intend to get the vaccine themselves.

Each additional person positively influencing the vaccine decision was associated with 1.67 times greater odds of vaccine acceptance.

Institutional level:

Health care organizations provide information on influenza and vaccines.

The doctor wants you to get the vaccine-related to increased odds of vaccine acceptance. Furthermore, the intention to get the vaccine was also related to the information received.

Community level:

The presence of the disease and the social context of risk perception could impact vaccine uptake in a community.

Policy level:

Insurance coverage for immunization is a significant predictor of vaccine uptake.

The percentage of uninsured in our sample was 16% among Whites, 21.5% among Blacks, and 40% among Hispanics. Having health insurance was a significant predictor of vaccine uptake among Blacks, but not among Whites or Hispanics.

Demographic factors:

Including age, race/ethnicity, education, income, and gender, were related to having gotten the 2009 H1N1 vaccine.

Minorities and those with less than a high school education were more likely to intend to get the vaccine than Whites and high school education people.

Question 1: If you use SEM association with your own experience of taking vaccines, why do you want/do not want to get vaccinated?

Question 2: Let us associate this with the general context of Covid-19, and our school is mandatory for the booster. If the school is not mandatory, what reasons would attract you to get the boosters?

Reference:

Kumar, S., Crouse, S., & Kim, K. (2011) The Social ecological model as a framework for determinants of the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine uptake in the United States. Health and Education Behavior, 39, 229-243.

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

 

Introduction

45-41 points

The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.

Literature Support

91-84  points

The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.

Methodology

58-53 points

Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.

83-76  points

Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.

52-49  points

Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.

75-1 points

Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.

48-1 points

There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met

A BBBBB
CCCCCCC HHHHH XXXXXXXXX
or

UCB334 Moral Problems and Unethical Behaviors Discussion

UCB334 Moral Problems and Unethical Behaviors Discussion