MMR Vaccination Rates Drop After 1998 Lancet Article - Essay Sample

Introduction

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and his co-authors published an article in the Lancet, which ascertained that mumps, measles, and rubella (MMR) vaccines could control the pervasive developmental disorder and behavior aggression in children (Deer, 2010). Due to the uncontrolled design, small sample size (n=12), and the speculative nature of the conclusion, the case series received broad publicity, and the MMR vaccination rates dropped since parents were concerned about the increased probability of their children getting autism after vaccination (Deer, 2010). The paper will analyze the evidence of the appropriate or inappropriate research practiced by Wakefield and his colleagues, how I might change my practice after reading the original article, and after its retraction, and finally how it is reasonable to adopt the method indicated in a study.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Evidence Regarding the Inappropriate Research Practices Conducted by A. J. Wakefield and His Colleagues

In 2004, a journalist known as Brian Deer based in United Kingdom (UK) exposed that Wakefield had a financial conflict of interest associated with the research. Firstly, Wakefield's research funding sources included a lawyer who worked on an anti-vaccine lawsuit for individuals who believed that the vaccines were a critical factor that led to their children's medical challenges (Deer, 2010). Secondly, the lawyer paid Wakefield and his colleagues to assist with the lawsuit. The issue led to the withdrawal of ten of the thirteen co-authors who made it clear that the article has no causal association between autism and the vaccine since the data utilized was insufficient (Deer, 2010). Consequently, even before the publication of the research, Wakefield worked on patenting his measle vaccine version, which he would sell at a profit as a supposedly "effective and safe" alternative for the MMR vaccine. British Medical Journal published several articles that exposed Wakefield financial interest as well as documenting that parents across the globe did not vaccinate their children due to the fear that they may develop autism disorder thus exposing children to the risk of developing the disease and linked complications. For instance, the measles outbreak in the United Kingdom between 2008 and 2009 is attributed to the non-vaccination of children (Grove, 2018).

My Alteration in Nursing Practice After Reading Wakefield's Article

There are distinct ways that I would have changed my practice as a nurse after reading the initial article. Firstly, I would be objective and competent in research. A practical and accurate study needs to include a lot of study subjects that will lead to desired results. Therefore, I will utilize a lot of participants and concentrate on a specific ailment, condition, or disorder to not only make the information manageable but also to allow for accurate interpretation of the study outcome (Gray, Grove & Sutherland, 2009). On the contrary, Wakefield attempted to evaluate two significant and unrelated disorders (IBD and autism) and to analyze their possible association with the medical procedure (MMR vaccine), which was utilized to prevent another different ailment (measles virus) all in the same research.

Secondly, I would incorporate integrity, professional behavior, and confidentiality in my research. I believe that as a good researcher, I need to disseminate and document the truth even if the findings contradicts my hypothesis. Wakefield practically hand-picked twelve children and paid their parents to have them participate in the research, based on how well their symptoms and conditions perfectly fitted with the results that he and the lawyer that paid at least 500,00 pounds-desired (Deer, 2010). In that perspective, he omitted undesirable information about the study participants and included falsified data. Henceforth, as a nursing practitioner, I would always provide accurate data of a study even if the findings are different from my proposed hypothesis.

How I Would Have Changed My Practice After Reading the Retraction in the Lancet

After reading the retraction of the article in the Lancet publication, I would utilize considerable time in a health study so that the conceptual model of the education can be converted to patient benefit. It is regularly mentioned that it takes an average of 17 years for study evidence to become clinical practice (Kim & Mallory, 2016). Similarly, I would make good use of the internet to read on a different article concerning the topic of research to understand their findings and conclusions of the researched topic. The reason being is that ethical responsibility is to ensure the utmost standards of data collection, analysis, reporting, design, and interpretation of findings; so that there are no compromises because any deceit or error can lead to harm to patients as well to the cause of science.

Conclusion

A research study, especially in the medical field, has to be useful and accurate. The reason being is that a study's findings are utilized to helps patients globally improve their well-being in regards to the researched topic. The code of ethics needs to be taken with utmost consideration during research to avoid putting patient's lives into jeopardy in an example depicted by Wakefield and his co-authors. In that regard, researchers, including nursing practitioners should utilize significant time when conducting research in medical fields to avoid errors as evidenced in the study of autism and MMR vaccines conducted by Wakefield.

References

Deer, B. (2010). Reflections on investigating Wakefield. BMJ, 340(feb02 4), c672-c672. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c672

Gray, J., Grove, S., & Sutherland, S. (2009). The practice of nursing research - appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. Nursing Standard, 23(45), 30-30. doi: 10.7748/ns.23.45.30. s35

Grove, B. (2018). The practice of nursing research. Nursing Research and Practice, 2018, 1-9. doi: 10.1155/2018/8984028

Kim, M., & Mallory, C. (2016). Statistics for evidence-based nursing. Evidence-Based Nursing, 3(1), 366-370. doi: 10.1136/ebn.3.1.4