1

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

In every pro, there’s always a con. Humans are not and will never be an

exemption to any kind of disease, may it be life threatening or not; but because of the

intelligence of human kind, specialists have formulated a form of prevention or

preparation that improves the immune system of most people and that is called a vaccine.

Vaccines have risen to the lime light in recent years but their history is longer than that.

Ever since the first vaccination was scientifically documented in 1798, they have

transfigured the outlook of human health and medicine. The effects of vaccines have

ranged from the wipe out of polio and smallpox worldwide, to the prevention of certain

cancers such as of the liver and the cervix. In fact, vaccines have been so influential that

some scientists consider them as among the greatest successes in public health (Chou,

2016).

Unfortunately, not everyone shares this optimistic view of vaccines. Today,

anti-vaccinationists (also known as anti-vaxxers), which sometimes include parents and

sadly, politicians, even religious leaders, and more, strongly oppose vaccination because

of the fear of risking people, especially the children’s health. At its core, the anti-

vaccination movement argues that vaccines are irrelevant, needless, ineffective, and

risky.

In the United States, 18 states allow exemptions to vaccinations based on

personal or philosophical beliefs, and 12 of these states have significant rises in

 2

households choosing to be exempted from vaccines. In the Philippines, year 2018, we fell

way short of our target for vaccination, with an estimated 60 percent of Filipino children

not receiving their vaccines. The consequences of this laxity in vaccination are swift and

brutal. Ignorance and misinformation are dangerous, not only to those households which

refuse vaccinations, but unfortunately for the rest of the community as well. At least 95

percent of a community ought to be vaccinated in order for herd immunity to be effective

at preventing measles, but below this target, vulnerable populations are more likely to be

uncovered and to succumb to the disease. To sum things up, an unvaccinated few can

have severe consequences for the community at large.

Given this, the researchers are wondering if this is truly the case. In this study,

the researchers aim to know the factors of why parents disregard the idea of getting their

children vaccinated and to be aware of the number of anti-vaxxers in Hausland

Subdivision.

Background of the Study

Vaccines are said to be one of the most tremendous discoveries and successes in

the medicine world. The idea of preventing a disease to administer in your body gives

people the need to be vaccinated. The story of vaccines begins with the long history of

infectious disease in humans, and in particular, with the early uses of smallpox material

to provide immunity to that disease. Vaccinations are very important, especially for

young children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infants

receive some laid-back immunity from their mothers at birth. A vaccination uses dead or
 3

weakened versions of bacteria or viruses to protect patients against diseases and

conditions. It also undergoes elaborate testing to ensure that they are safe and benefit

those receiving them (Sheeshy, 2014).

The Vaccination Act of 1853 was met with immediate resistance, and several

organizations were formed, including the Anti-Vaccination League. Anti-vaccine groups

in the 19th century said that vaccines would make you sick, warned the people about

poisonous chemicals being used namely carbolic acid in the smallpox vaccine, and

pushed alternative medical practices, including herbalists, homeopaths, and hydropaths.

Although the great majority of people still vaccinate their children, arrays of intentionally

unvaccinated children are certainly on the rise. And it is these clusters of unvaccinated

kids and adults that are leading to a rise in outbreaks of vaccine – preventable diseases

that are getting harder to control.

An ongoing measles outbreak in the Philippines has killed at least 70 people last

January 2019, with anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists blamed for a fall in the rate of

protected children. The World Health Organization notes population immunity can be

achieved if 95 percent of people is vaccinated, but the rate of immunization in the

Philippines has collapsed to just 55 percent – a devaluation of 15 percent in the past year

(WHO, 2019).

To perceive the factors and number of people who are against or not in favor of

vaccinating their children, the researchers will make the respondents undergo survey

forms to acquire the information needed for this study.

 4

Theoretical Framework

According to Steinberg & Thissen (2013), Item response theory comprises of a

collection mathematical and statistical models and methods that are used in the assembly

and scoring of psychological questionnaires and scales. It is used to investigate the

statistical properties of categorical responses to questions or observations that may be

indicators on a test or scale. Item response theory models are used for item analysis.

Statistical analysis summarizes the degree of endorsement or severity of each response,

the strength of relation between item response and underlying construct and the degree to

a collection of questions. Item response theory used to investigate the degree to which

item response in differential item functioning or a lack of desired invariance over groups.

Item response theory is used to compute the scales scores that are comparable across

alternate forms of a questionnaire and that may have better statistical properties than

more summed scores.

Item response theory is not really a theory but rather a collection of

measurement models. Each is an attempt to explain the process by which individuals

respond to items. All IRT models are built to measure subjective phenomena, and the

basic one is the Rasch model. The most important claim of the Rasch proponents is that,

due to the mode of collecting response data in combination with the estimation procedure

of the model, the derived measures have strong qualities. Notwithstanding which IRT

model is chosen, all of them provide several features for exploring and testing the

responses from individuals, the items, and the total score of an instrument (Krabbe,

2017).
 5

Conceptual Framework

The Item Response Theory gave the background knowledge and the starting

point of the study to the researcher. In this theory, it shows the relationship of factors and

the standpoint of the parents on vaccinating their children. The Constructed tool(s) used

in the study are expected to reveal the significant findings of the study and this comprises

the outcome. Finally, the researchers made recommendations regarding the outcome and

that will comprise the recommendation. Given these, the researchers were given a clear

outlook and mindset on what to investigate on its scope, limitations and the established

and known information about the inquiry. Thus, the researchers were able to make a

study about the factors that affect the standpoint of parents who are not in favor of

vaccinating their children in Hausland Subdivision for the year 2019-2020

Figure 1. The research paradigm of the study

 6

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to find out the factors that affect the standpoint of parents who

are not in favor of vaccinating their children in Hausland Subdivision for the year 2019-

2020.

Specifically, it attempts to seek answers to the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the parents according to:

a.) Age

b.) Sex

c.) Civil Status

2. What are the factors that affect the standpoint of the parents who refuse to

have their children vaccinated?

3. Which among the factors is the most influential?

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study focused on determining the factors and how it affects the standpoint

of parents who are not in favor of vaccinating their child. This study was conducted in

Hausland Subdivision and the respondents were primarily parents. Lastly, this study will

only be for the year 2019-2020.

 7

Significance of the Study

The results of this study may be significant to the following individuals:

To students. They will benefit from this study in a way that they will be made

aware on the various factors are and how it affects the standpoint of parents who are not

in favor of vaccinating their child.

To teachers. They will also benefit from this study in a way that they also will

be made aware on the various factors are and how it affects the standpoint of parents who

are not in favor of vaccinating their child. They can use also this study as a guide when

they reach the point of deciding on whether to vaccine their child or not.

To parents. Through this study, they will be made aware on what the factors

are and how it affects their standpoint of not vaccinating their child. With that, they can

reflect on what is better for their child/children.

To medical institutions. Through this study, people in medical institutions will

have an idea on the factors that affect the standpoint of parents who are not in favor of

vaccinating their child so that they could come up with programs on how to better

promote the benefits of vaccinations to parents and children.

To the community. Through this study, the people in the community will have

awareness on what factors that affect the standpoint of parents who are not in favor of

vaccinating their child. They can use this study as a guide for making a decision whether

to vaccine their child or not.

 8

To future researchers. They will be able to use the results of this study as a

reference and a guide to conduct deeper investigation on related topics using a broader

range and treatment.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of clarification, the following terms used in this study are defined:

Anti-vaccinationists. One who opposes vaccination.

Dengvaxia. It is a vaccine used to help protect against dengue disease.

Item Response Theory. A paradigm for the design, analysis, and scoring of tests,

questionnaires, and similar instruments measuring abilities, attitudes, or other variables.

A theory of testing based on the relationship between individuals' performances on a test

item and the test takers' levels of performance on an overall measure of the ability that

item was designed to measure.

Vaccination. It is the act of getting a vaccine, usually as a shot.

Immunization. It is the process of becoming immune to (protected against) a disease.

 9

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the significant summaries of related literature and studies

after thorough and in-depth searches were done by the researchers. This will give readers

a better understanding and deeper insights on the study.

Foreign Literature

Parental acceptance and rejection of available immunizations is vital to both

effective provider-parent communication concerning vaccination decisions and public

health campaigns to optimize vaccination coverage (Sturm, Mays, & Zimet, 2005). A

large amount of anti-vaccination media, action groups, and web sites may further make

matters worse by broadcasting negative vaccine information and highlighting reasons for

concern that often have no scientific evidence (Harris, Hughbanks-Wheaton, Johnston, &

Kubin, 2007).

According to McKee and Bohannon (2016) in their article entitled “Exploring

the Reasons Behind Parental Refusal of Vaccines”, there are four factors that affect the

standpoint of parents who are not in favor of vaccinating their children and they are (1)

religious reasons, the choice is not the by-product of ignorance but rather the intentional

and calculated decision related to a staunch conviction (2) personal beliefs or

philosophical reasons, the natural immunity of their children (3) safety concerns, mostly

based on what the parents have discovered through social media and (4) desire for
 10

additional education, the parents want to be able to make informed decisions about their

child’s healthcare by knowing both the benefits and risks associated with each vaccine.

In the article made by Damnjanović et. al. (2018), there are five factors

affecting the perception of the parents regarding vaccination -- (1) trust toward

authorities, the full picture is seldom easily available and individuals have a hard time

forming their own opinions on the topic thus, argumentation must rely on evidence which

is accepted largely based on trust (2) perceived consensus and norms, their decision is

highly influenced by what the other people say (3) freedom of choice, choice overload,

and values, (4) perception of danger, and lastly (5) access to information.

In the book written by Shane "The People's Chemist" Ellison, he stated why he

have not and will not vaccinate his own children, and why he uses vaccine exemption

forms for public school -- (1) vaccination does not always mean "immunization".

Vaccines boost our defenses only temporarily because our immune system is

programmed to recognize and attack invaders that come through the nose, mouth and

eyes. It doesn't work properly when we shove infection into our body with a needle.

"Children under two years of age do not consistently develop immunity following

vaccination", as said by WHO.

With the discoveries of Beutler et. al. (2011) concerning the activation of innate

immunity and the dendrite cell’s role in adaptive immunity, kids can build immunity

naturally. We are hard-wired with special receptors that recognize foreign invaders and

activate our immune response which clears biological nasties from the body.
 11

Local Literature

The Department of Health (DOH) identified vaccine hesitancy of the public as

one of the reasons for the recent measles outbreak in some regions in the Philippines last

February in the current year. According to an article from the Philippine News Agency,

DOH stated that the causes of measles outbreak involved a number of factors or

elements. Loss of public confidence and trust in vaccines in the immunization program

brought about by the Dengvaxia controversy has been documented as one of the many

factors that contributed to vaccine hesitancy in the country. This refers to mothers who

became hesitant to have their children vaccinated with vaccines that were long proven to

be effective.

According to an article made by Lai S. Reyes (2019), Dr. Chimeremma

“Chime” Nnadi, the medical director of Global Vaccine Medical Affairs of MSD, stated

that there are three factors that contribute to vaccine hesitancy: (1) Complacency, (2)

Confidence, and (3) Convenience.

Complacency; Young parents are getting more and more complacent that their

children won’t be inflicted with “rare” diseases like polio and diphtheria anymore. “They

have read about it, heard about it but haven’t actually seen a person with polio”.

Confidence in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is one of the drivers in

the reduction of vaccine uptake. E.g. gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield published a

fraudulent paper claiming that there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Since then, people lost confidence in the safety of the MMR and uptake fell, leading to

outbreaks of mumps and measles throughout the 2000s.

 12

Convenience; even if vaccines are offered for free in public health centers, the

lack of affordable transport can be a barrier to vaccination for low-income families. Also,

due to the wide range of vaccinations available, the immunization schedule can be quite

confusing, especially when there is more than one child requiring vaccination. Parents

simply may not know or lose track of which vaccines are required when. “Vaccines, if

administered properly and at the right time, can help save the lives of a countless number

of Filipinos”.

A news report from Reuters stated, the Philippines is considering re-introducing

a dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) which was banned from distributing due to its links to the

deaths of several children, as authorities battle to contain a dengue outbreak that has

killed more than 450 people this 2019. Concerns over dengue immunization for nearly

734,000 children aged nine or older sparked two congressional inquiries, a criminal

investigation and a sharp fall in the number of parents seeking routine vaccinations for

their children. If the government decided to revive the use of Dengvaxia, it would be

administered with “utmost caution”, presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo said. “If

Dengvaxia is proven effective to those who already had dengue in the past, then its

application to these individuals will surely cause the decline of the overall number of

cases”.

According to ABS-CBN News, the Department of Health confirmed the re-

emergence of polio in the Philippines, 19 years after the World Health Organization

declared the country polio-free. A single confirmed polio case of vaccine-derived polio

virus type 2 or two positive environmental samples that are genetically linked isolated in

two different locations is considered an epidemic in a polio-free country. The DOH said
 13

there is "no cure for polio" and that "it can only be prevented with multiple doses of polio

vaccines that have long been proven safe and effective. Health Secretary Francisco

Duque III earlier warned that the country was at "high risk for poliovirus transmission" as

there had been a drop in oral polio vaccine (OPV) coverage in the past years.

Foreign Studies

From a study made by Larson et al. (2016), public trust in immunization is an

increasingly important global health issue. Losses in confidence in vaccines and

immunization programs can lead to vaccine reluctance and refusal, risking disease

outbreaks and challenging immunization goals in high- and low-income settings.

National and international immunization stakeholders have called for better monitoring of

vaccine confidence to identify emerging concerns before they evolve into vaccine

confidence crises.

From a study made by Ozawa and Stack (2013), trust in vaccines and in the

health system is an important element of public health programs that aim to deliver life-

saving vaccines. Indeed, understanding the contributors and threats to trust is essential to

explaining vaccine acceptance, particularly as they vary across epidemiologic conditions,

specific vaccines and cultural and sociopolitical settings. Greater efforts to communicate

the benefits and risks of vaccines and address issues with evidence-based information

will help improve and sustain public trust in vaccines and health systems worldwide.

Measuring and monitoring trust levels and focusing on deliberate efforts to build trust in

vaccines are important steps to reducing vaccine confidence gaps when they occur.
 14

The premise of the anti-vaccination movement can also be contributed to the

demonization of vaccinations by news and entertainment outlets. Voices such as Jenny

McCarthy’s have proven to be influential, sweeping fear and distrust into parents’ minds

by parading as “autism experts”. Social media and television talk show hosts, such as

Oprah Winfrey, played a big role in this miseducation by giving credence to the

campaign. This has caused vaccination rates to sustain a surprising drop in some Western

countries. The decrease in vaccinations has led to recent outbreaks of diseases that were

thought to be “eliminated”, such as measles. Still, other reasons for the anti-vaccination

movement can be due to personal reasons, such as religious or secular views (Hussain et.

al., 2018).

From a study made by Sevin et. al. (2016), the top five factors likely to affect

the decision to receive an immunization among the 304 respondents were: “doctor’s

recommendation” (80.6 %), “knowing why I should get a vaccine” (78.2 %), “knowing

which vaccines I need” (75.5 %), cost (54.2 %), and “concern about getting sick if I get a

vaccine” (54.0 %). Significant differences in factors influencing the immunization

decision exist among respondents based on ethnicity and education level. For those

participants with self-identified diabetes, heart disease, or asthma, less than half were

aware that certain immunizations could reduce the risk of complications associated with

their disease(s).

Using one-on-one interviews, a qualitative study (n=30) sought to determine

parents’ vaccination comprehension and decision-making thought processes (Downs, de

Bruin, & Fischoff, 2008). The respondents of the study were primarily White with the

remainder being African American, and Native American. This study primarily focused
 15

on the MMR vaccine. Twenty-four of the parents (80%) reported first learning about the

vaccination from their healthcare provider, with the others reporting having read about it

first. When asked about drawbacks to getting their child vaccinated, 37% of the parents

stated there were drawbacks which they rated as moderately serious. The better parents

felt about how well vaccinations had been explained to them, the more they thought that

not vaccinating their child would hurt other children. In general, parents trusted pro-

vaccination communications more than anti-vaccination ones.

Regarding vaccinations carried out on children, the declared vaccination

coverage rates ranged widely between good coverage percentages for some vaccinations

(Measles-Mumps-Rubella, Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis), and very low coverage rates

for others, especially for “new” vaccinations (HPV, meningococcal, pneumococcal). The

vaccinations carried out correlated negatively with both parents’ age and their level of

education. Moreover, a favorable parents’ opinion was strongly influenced by a favorable

opinion of the physician, while an unfavorable parents’ opinion seemed conditioned by a

direct or indirect knowledge of people harmed by vaccines. In addition, our data show

that parents do not often know or partially know the real composition of the vaccines and

the diseases prevented by vaccinations (Facciolà et. al., 2019).

From May 2011 through September 2012, 454 parents of 2 week old infants

were approached. Of these, 369 (81.3%) completed the PACV survey (67 parents

declined to participate and 18 parents did not meet inclusion criteria). A total of 122

participants had PACV scores of ≥ 25 and were enrolled; 67 at the control site and 55 at

the intervention site. There was no significant difference in median baseline scores

between groups [control group = 36.63 (IQR: 29.97–53.28); intervention group = 39.96
 16

(IQR: 33.30–53.28)]. There were no significant differences between groups regarding

parental age, gender, education, number of children, prenatal care onset, race/ethnicity

and insurance status. There was a significant difference between groups in reported

household income (Williams et. al., 2014).

The age group least likely to accept vaccination included those individuals

younger than 25 years while those most likely to accept vaccines were aged 60 years or

older (p < 0.001). Regarding hesitancy, the youngest age group studied were also the

most likely to “hesitate”, whereas the over-60s were the least likely to “hesitate”. The

youngest age group also showed the highest rate of blank answers to hesitancy as well as

to whether they accepted or refused vaccination (~44%).Single parents were the group

least likely to accept vaccination (54%) and those with the highest rate of blank answers

(40.1%), whereas all remaining groups were much more likely to accept vaccination (>

85%). Regarding hesitancy, 48% of single parents reported not hesitating, whereas those

in a stable union (63.8%), married (72.9%) or widowed (75%) reported not being

hesitant.Further analysis of the sample population regarding socio-demographic indices,

namely age group, marital status, family income and level of education, demonstrated

that respondents were less likely to be hesitant or refuse vaccination if they were older

than 45 years, not single, earning more than one minimum wage per month, and more

educated (Sperandio, 2018).

 17

Local Studies

Dengue is a viral infection spread mainly by the bite of the Aedesaegypti

mosquito, which is widespread around the Southern Hemisphere. Symptoms include

fever, headache, and pain in joints and muscles. In some cases, symptoms can be more

sever and lead to death. With cases in the Philippines rising from 2012-2015, it was

hoped an immunization campaign with a new dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia), licensed in

December 2015, would stern the spread. However, in November 2017, the manufacturer,

Sanofi Pasteur, announced that Dengvaxia posed a risk to people who had not previously

been exposed to dengue. While other countries dealt with this assessment by updating

guidelines and labeling accordingly, the news triggered outrage and political turmoil in

the Philippines leading to broken public trust in the dengue vaccine and anxiety around

vaccines in general (Pullin, 2018)

From a study made by Montemayor (2019), the Department of Health (DOH)

identified vaccine hesitancy of the public as one of the reasons for the recent measles

outbreak in some regions of the country. In a statement, DOH defined vaccine hesitancy

as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination

services. In October 2018, the World Health Organization conducted a study in selected

areas in Metro Manila to identify reasons why parents are not having their child

immunized. It showed that fear of vaccines due to Dengvaxia and the lack of time among

households as the main reasons for the decline in vaccination rate.

 18

There were 12 interviews conducted in November 2017 and 5 focus group

discussions in January 2018, a month after vaccine program suspension with 41

participants. All participants were selected through purpose criterion sampling. Thematic

analysis showed acceptability of the dengue vaccine was associated with parental

experience with vaccination and dengue, trust in public health institutions and

communication received by parents. Post-dengue vaccination suspension triangulation

indicated that the parents regretted the experience, trust to public institutions was eroded

and the communication strategy was deemed inadequate. This led to low vaccine

acceptability post-vaccine suspension (Valido et. al., 2018).

Synthesis

The present study is closely related to the above-mentioned local and foreign

literatures and studies because they dealt with the factors affecting the standpoint of

parents’ decision for not vaccinating their children. Although there are variations, most of

the literatures and studies focused on vaccine hesitancy per se, the list of factors that

affected the parents’ perception and how other respondents involved were deemed as

relevant to the current study. The present study differs from the gathered literature and

studies for the reason that it deals and focuses more extensively and specifically on

identifying the factors affecting the decision-making of parents involving vaccination of

their children at Hausland Subdivision for the year 2019-2020.

 19

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter contains the discussion of the research design that was used, the

respondents of the study, the research instrument, the data gathering procedure, and the

statistical treatment of data.

Research Design

The Descriptive method was used in this research because it is well-suited in

answering the research questions properly.

Descriptive research is a research used to “describe” a situation, subject,

behavior, or phenomenon. According to McCombes (2019), descriptive research is used

to answer questions of who, what, when, where, and how associated with a particular

research question or problem. It attempts to gather quantifiable information that can be

used to statistically analyze a target audience or a particular subject. Description research

is used to observe and describe a research subject or problem without influencing or

manipulating the variables in any way. This type of research is conclusive in nature,

rather than exploratory. Survey method is used to that the researchers can interact with

individual test subjects by collecting information through the use of surveys or

interviews.
 20

Research Respondents

This study involves selected sixty-three (63) parents residing in Hausland

Subdivision for the year 2019-2020. The total population of parents in the said

subdivision is one hundred fifteen (115) whereas the reduced fifty-two (52) are composed

of Overseas Filipino Workers and others who are busy at their work.

Research Instrument

The researchers designed a survey form as one of the data collection instrument

for this study. A survey is utilized to collect, analyze and interpret the views of a group of

people from a target population (Sincero, 2012).The researchers used a semi-structured

schedule as the survey was conducted on the availability of the researchers to conduct the

survey. The survey questions were aimed in recognizing the factors affecting their

standpoint on vaccine and what led to these factors will be seen on the survey forms.

Data Collection and Management

A letter of permission to conduct the survey in Hausland Subdivision was sent

to the Barangay Office of Anabu I-B and Homeowners Association of the said place.

Upon receiving the letter, the Barangay Captain and the Vice President of HHOA granted

the request. The researchers constructed the survey and had it validated to three (3)

teachers. The researchers then administered the survey to the respondents and after

collecting the data from all the respondents, the researchers collected the answered

survey forms. The test results were then tabulated, analyzed and interpreted.
 21

Statistical Treatment of Data

The researchers used the Mean and Mode to identify the most influential factor

that affect the standpoint of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

Let:

x̄ = Mean

∑ = summation

x = all of the x-values

N = total number of respondents

Mode is used to determine the parents with the most number based on their age

and sex.
 22

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the results of the data that has been collected through the

use of survey questionnaire. The following tables will show the number of parents who

agreed or disagreed with the questions provided in the survey questionnaire.

Class f x fx cf lb
56-59 3 57.5 172.5 63 55.5
52-55 7 53.5 374.5 60 51.5
Middle adulthood 48-51 7 49.5 346.5 53 47.5
44-47 9 45.5 409.5 46 43.5
40-43 13 41.5 539.5 37 39.5 Mean=40.74 Mode=41.66
36-39 2 37.5 75 24 35.5
32-35 7 33.5 234.5 22 31.5
Young adulthood
28-31 8 29.5 236 15 27.5
24-27 7 25.5 178.5 7 23.5
Total 63 2566.5

Table 1.Frequency of the respondents according to the range of their age

As shown in Table 1, the data were collected from 63 Parents: 31 Male and 32

Female. The age of the respondents ranges from 24 to 57 years old, selected based on the

criteria of the researchers. According to the grouped data, the mode of the age of the

respondents range from 40-43 years old.

 23

MARRIED COUPLE
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Trust towards authorities Perception of danger Safety concerns Personal Beliefs Access to information
M 18 19 8.5 6 12.5
10 20 9 9 16
13 20 9 9 10
13 20 5 2 10
F 19 20 15 15 17
14 8 7 16 7
9 5 5 6 7
14 12 16 8 8
Mean 13.75 15.5 9.3125 8.875 10.9375
SD 3.453776401 6.23354978 4.14847218 4.673252156 3.895395634

Table 2.Mean of the scores per factor according to married couples

Table 2 displays the average mean of every question which corresponds to a

given factor. From the data gathered, the mean of every factor was collected from 4

Married Couple or 8 respondents: 4 Male and 4 Female. The table above displays that

factor 1 which is “trust towards authorities” scored 13.75% out of 20%, factor 2 which is

“perception of danger” scored 15.5% out of 20%, factor 3 which is “safety concerns”

scored 9.31% out of 20%, factor 4 which is “personal beliefs” scored 8.88% out of 20%

and factor 5 which is “access to information” scored 10.94% out of 20%. According to

the data from the married couples, the most influential factor is factor 2 which is

“perception of danger”.
 24

MARRIED
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Trust towards authorities Perception of danger Safety concerns Personal Beliefs Access to information
M 17 19 4 3 9
19 15.5 13.5 9.5 17.5
9.5 12 13 10.5 10.5
16.5 11.5 13.5 8 7
9.5 10 16 12.5 16.5
16 19 8 2.5 8.5
7.5 15.5 10 14 14
15 12 11 9 15
12 19 13 13 9
14 19 6 7 10
12 20 13 13 13
6 12 15 10 10
4 10 17 12 6
12 20 13 13 13
10 9 12 13 6
16 14 15 14 16
16.5 14 6.5 11 13.5
15 15 13 20 10
F 16 10 11 12 10
19 14 9 10 17
10 16 8 10 9
12 12 11 16 15
7 13 15 8 17
17 12 17 13 13
5 7.5 15 14 9
20 16 11 6 15
20 20 8.5 9 4
20 20 8 6 11
17 20 9.5 2 3
17 17 10 12 16
16 15 16 15 7
15 12 17 11 7
7 12 15 18 10
19 12 16 15 11
16 16.5 17.5 11 13.5
17.5 15 6 13 11
14 20 13 17 13
2 18 4 4 2
10 20 12 20 15
10 19 13 9 12
19 20 9.5 10 4
17 12 17 13 13
Mean 13.57142857 15.13095238 11.94047619 11.16666667 11
SD 4.795286594 3.710662823 3.691127102 4.224877927 4.040948935

Table 3. Total of the scores per question according to married respondents

Table 3 displays the average mean of every question which corresponds to a
 25

given factor. From the data gathered from 41 married respondents: 18 male and 23

female, the mean of every factor was collected. The table above displays that factor 1

which is “trust towards authorities” scored 13.57% out of 20%, factor 2 which is

“perception of danger” scored 15.13% out of 10%, factor 3 which is “safety concerns”

scored 11.94% out of 10%, factor 4 which is “personal beliefs” scored 11.17% out of

20% and factor 5 which is “access to information” scored 11% out of 20%. According to

the data from the married respondents, the most influential factor is factor 2 which is

“perception of danger”.

SINGLE PARENT
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Trust towards authorities Perception of danger Safety concerns Personal Beliefs Access to information
M 13.5 16 11 14 13.5
18 9 10 10 10
11 11 11 9 12
14 12 11 12 10
16 12 13 15 18
F 17 17 11 7 8
14 20 3 3 5
13 20 7 5 14
Mean 14.5625 14.625 9.625 9.375 11.3125
SD 2.290313453 4.206712323 3.159452936 4.24053568 3.990502117

Table 4. Total of the scores per question according to single parent

Table 4 displays the average mean of every question which corresponds to a

given factor. From the data gathered from 8 single parent: 5 male and 3 female, the mean

of every factor was collected. The table above displays that factor 1 which is “trust

towards authorities” scored 14.56% out of 20%, factor 2 which is “perception of danger”

scored 14.63% out of 20%, factor 3 which is “safety concerns” scored 9.63% out of 20%,

factor 4 which is “personal beliefs” scored 9.38% out of 20% and factor 5 which is
 26

“access to information” scored 11.31% out of 20%. According to the data from the single

parent respondents, the most influential factor is factor 2 which is “perception of danger”.

WIDOW
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Trust towards authorities Perception of danger Safety concerns Personal Beliefs Access to information
M 12 12 17 10 14
15 13 7 9 16
15 19 13 12 16
13 13 13 15 12
F 15 11 11 12 9
4 16 9 16 17
Mean 12.33333333 14 11.66666667 12.33333333 14
SD 4.273952113 2.966479395 3.502380143 2.732520204 3.033150178

Table 5.Total of the scores per question according to widow

Table 5 displays the average mean of every question which corresponds to a

given factor. From the data gathered from 7 widowed respondents: 5 male and 3 female,

the mean of every factor was collected. The table above displays that factor 1 which is

“trust towards authorities” scored 12.33% out of 20%, factor 2 which is “perception of

danger” scored 14% out of 20%, factor 3 which is “safety concerns” scored 11.67% out

of 20%, factor 4 which is “personal beliefs” scored 12.33% out of 20% and factor5 which

is “access to information” scored 14% out of 10%. According to the data from the

widowed respondents, the most influential factor is factor 2 which is “perception of

danger” and factor 5 which is “access to information”.

 27

OVERALL
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Trust towards authorities Perception of danger Safety concerns Personal Beliefs Access to information
Married Couple 13.75 15.5 9.31 8.88 10.93
Married 13.49 15.21 11.82 11.44 10.95
Single Parent 13.94 13.38 9.63 9.38 11.31
Widow 12.33 14 11.67 12.33 14
Mean 13.3775 14.5225 10.6075 10.5075 11.7975

Table 6 Overall mean of the scores according to the 63 respondents

Table 6 displays the overall mean of every factor. From the data gathered from

63 respondents: 4 Married Couple, 41 Married, 8 Single Parent and 6 Widow, the mean

of every factor was collected. The table above displays that factor 1 which is “trust

towards authorities” scored 13.38% out of 20%, factor 2 which is “perception of danger”

scored 14.52% out of 20%, factor 3 which is “safety concerns” scored 10.61% out of

20%, factor 4 which is “personal beliefs” scored 10.51% out of 20% and factor 5 which is

“access to information” scored 11.80% out of 20%. According to the data from all of the

respondents, the most influential factor is factor 2 which is “perception of danger”.

 28

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the findings, the conclusion drawn from

the findings and the corresponding recommendations. This study was taken with the

general objective of determining the factors that affects the standpoint of parents who are

not in favor of vaccinating their children in Hausland Subdivision.

Summary of the Findings

This study observed the different kinds of factors that affect the standpoint of

parents who are not in favor of vaccinating their children in Hausland Subdivision. The

data were collected from 63 Parents: 31 Male and 32 Female. Majority of the parents are

aged 54, the female respondents outnumbered the male respondents, and most of the

parents are married. The factors that were found by the researchers are (1) trust towards

authorities, (2) perception of danger, (3) safety concerns, (4) personal beliefs, and (5)

access to information. According to the data from the married couples, the most

influential factor is factor #2 which is “perception of danger”. According to the data from

the married respondents, the most influential factor is factor #2 which is “perception of

danger”. According to the data from the single parent respondents, the most influential

factor is factor #2 which is “perception of danger”. According to the data from the

widowed respondents, the most influential factors are factor #2 which is “perception of

danger” and factor #5 which is “access to information”. According to the data from all of

the respondents, the most influential factor is factor #2 which is “perception of danger”.
 29

Conclusions

Based on the findings derived from this study, the conclusion that was derived

from the data is that the majority of the parents are aged 54. As to sex, the female

respondents outnumbered the male respondents; and as for the civil status, majority of the

parents are married. The factors that were found by the researchers are (1) trust towards

authorities, (2) perception of danger, (3) safety concerns, (4) personal beliefs, and (5)

access to information. The most influential factor that affects the standpoint of parents

against vaccination is the perception of danger. The researchers observed that the people

they have acquired from the data prioritize more the health of their children and the

effects they can possibly experience.

Recommendations

Based on the acquired data from the surveys the researchers made, the most

influential factor that affects the standpoint of parents against vaccination is the

perception of danger.

The researchers recommend the future researchers to know the difference of the

decisions between a male parent and a female parent regarding the said issue about

vaccination whether the sex of a person affects his/her opinion and perspective about

vaccinating their children as well as to dwell more on relationships of the civil status of

the respondents and their reactions towards vaccination.