Correct vaccination practices begin with proper education: The effect of professional training on vaccine advocacy among healthcare professionals.
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION
Healthcare professionals, particularly midwives and nurses, have played a fundamental role in global immunization efforts by acting as the primary providers responsible for vaccine administration.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in Childhood Vaccination Advocacy Scale scores before and after vaccine advocacy awareness training.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
Data were collected using a questionnaire on demographic characteristics and knowledge regarding vaccine administration, developed by the researcher in accordance with the literature, as well as the Vaccine Advocacy Scale for Childhood Vaccines. This research was designed as a single-group, pre-test and post-test quasi-experimental study. Pre-test and post-test scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A significance level of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
The study was conducted with 249 midwives and/or nurses. The mean age of the participants was 39.40 ± 7.43 years, with an average of 18.01 ± 7.99 years of profesional experience. The mean total score on the Vaccine Advocacy Scale for Childhood Vaccines was 45.19 ± 2.85 before the training and 46.95 ± 1.99 after the training. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that the increase in post-training scores was statistically significant (p = 0.000).
CONCLUSION
The findings indicate that participants had relatively high levels of vaccine advocacy even prior to the training. However, the statistically significant improvement in scores post-training clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of the educational intervention.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.