The Psychological Impacts Of COVID-19 On Healthcare Workers Free Sample

The proceeding is a detailed compilation of literature on the psychological impact of Covid-19 on healthcare workers in the United States. The review will first give the historical development of the psychological impact of any pandemic on healthcare workers and then provide the recent psychological impact of Covid-19 on healthcare workers. It will then analyze the lessons learned from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on health workers, and finally, the plans to evade the psychological impact of a similar pandemic on health workers.

Historical development of the Psychological Impact of the Pandemic on Health workers

Covid-19 was not the only virus that pushed healthcare workers on the verge of collapse regarding psychological implications. In history, such cases have been identified with various health issues too. According to Son et al. (2019), health workers underwent a psychological breakdown when the Middle East respiratory disease emerged in South Korea. From a total of 280 healthcare workers, almost half of the population expressed reduced resilience which sent fear into the perception and hope of other workers. Those who faced the Middle East Respiratory disease in 2015 lacked preparation to handle the outbreak, which caused most of them to develop psychological breakdowns with an immediate impact of perceived low resilience risk among the workers (Son, 2019).

Similarly, the same case was vivid when a terrifying Ebola virus was on outbreak. Chew et al. (2020) detail that emerging health issues always find healthcare workers unprepared, leaving them psychologically drained. Various psychological impacts are displayed, such as anxiety about the new disease, the guilt of watching the patient dying at your watch, depression, post-traumatic stress, anger, stigmatization as a healthcare worker and the grief of those being lost every day (Chew et al., 2020). The impact was not only limited to psychological torture, but the outbreak claimed the lives of healthcare workers at some point, terrorizing their being.

In other instances, an outbreak came as a psychological blow to healthcare workers worldwide. The other instance is the influenza pandemic that grieved many families in 2009 (Chew, 2020). Keysely et al. (2020) assert that healthcare workers are always on the verge of quitting when dealing with a novel outbreak. Influenza outbreaks took a toll on their work’s psychological well-being, leaving them both physically and mentally imbalanced. Sometimes these workers have their relatives under the watch of influenza patient procedures and are put into more extended quarantine periods. With the bit of experience of the new virus, they are thrown into despair, watching their loved ones into quarantine, not sure if they will get through the test of the allocated time and recover (Keysely et al., 2020). Moreover, healthcare workers undergo stigmatization based on insufficient knowledge and limited options for dealing with the situation.

The situation was never different when the novel Coronavirus took its popularity on the stage, pushing the world into chaos, fear, and hopelessness. Based on healthcare workers’ historical and psychological disposition, there was an urgent thirst to synthesize and integrate the experience accumulated while dealing with life-threatening outbreaks that emerged before Covid-19 (Chew, 2020). The virus was initially discovered in 2019 in a series of outbreaks of respiratory diseases situations in China, Wuhan City. The emergence of Covid-19 became a threat to life on the planet, with the death toll reaching the highest number in the history of infections and virus outbreaks. Healthcare workers have been subjected to an overwhelming workload accompanied by unrequited pressure since the emergence of the Virus (Yu Si et al., 2020).

Recent Psychological Impact of Covid-19 on Health Workers

During the outbreak of the Covid-19 virus, the healthcare worker was a vivid definition of burnout caused by the overwhelming workloads and the unending interaction with flooding patients. They experienced suffering and pains caused by long hours of working with limited sleep thriving to catch a breath with the pressure from the unknown and threatening virus (Martinez-Lopez et al., 2020). According to Martinez-Lopez et al. (2020), at least 12 percent of healthcare workers succumbed to the disease. This staggering number imprinted uncertainty among the healthcare workers in the field. Working with poor or no protective measures with a hunch of contradicting information about the virus from the official databases threw the healthcare workers into panic and anxiety.

This is because it is believed that burnout problems could be brought on by stress in a working environment, which depends on time constraints, workload, time constraints, demands, or management pressure, among other related things. However, the psychosocial approach believes that the work and personal environments are what can cause this syndrome to manifest. In such a way, it arises as a reaction to labor stress without an exact cause that precipitates it. However, realizing this does not minimize the dissatisfaction or lack of motivation already present. Furthermore, strikingly, we noticed from the completed logistic regression that the increased probability of experiencing burnout focuses on medical professionals over other health workers in the sub-dimension of emotional tiredness. Notably, they outperform clinical attendants responsible for providing patients with the most basic care.

Nevertheless, this vulnerability to compassion fatigue is not a consequence of a shortage of cooperation between the various professional classifications instead of the failure of highly trained professionals to anticipate the widespread absence of independent protective gear among medical practitioners, particularly the ones who were most susceptible to virus infection because of more significant interaction with patients. This makes sense in the relationship between emotional tiredness and the ability to approach sickness more scientifically than through companionship and concern. In this respect, the operation might be focused on saving the lives of people with the disease who, while several could be rescued, several others failed, especially in specialized units like the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), in which the requirement for spaces was more significant than the present availability. These specialists’ inability to effectively respond to COVID-19 sickness has resulted in increased emotional weariness. Similar findings have been seen in recent research, like that of Si et al. (2020), which demonstrated that following the COVID-19 epidemic, doctors in China showed increased symptoms related to mental health, increased anxiety regarding violence, and decreased mood.

The main psychological difficulties encountered were apprehension about the future or being infected. According to extensive research by Que et al. (2020), medical assistance during the pandemic causes panic and raises stress levels. The most significant portion of the population that is already at heightened risk, such as healthcare workers, who have a greater suicidal possibility as compared to the rest of the population, may become more traumatized by the overall situation, which also increases their likelihood of developing mental health disorders. Amid the crisis, healthcare workers received emphasis on sacrificing themselves while rendering vital and life-saving operations, and healthcare workers were frequently embodied as heroes. This increased the pressure on individuals to meet expectations regarding their capacity for professional and emotional flexibility and individual strength. But, compared to military members in a visualized approach, it deprives them of the ability to perceive their weaknesses or talk about unpleasant events. This may unintentionally raise their stigmatizing attitudes and mental health concerns, preventing individuals from obtaining psychiatric care.

Many healthcare personnel in direct contact with infected patients in China were more subject to mental torture, expressing extreme mental disorder symptoms including stress, insomnia and anxiety than those in managerial positions. The psychological impact did not only affect those in contact with patients but also those non-frontiers. They experienced psychological stress due to the fact that they lacked quality resources that were distributed to frontiers for safety purposes. Such feeling demonstrates the necessity of supporting systems for every medical personnel, regardless of their position or level of viral exposure. Medical professionals were undoubtedly confronting difficult choices and moral difficulties during the outbreak due to the added ambiguity surrounding the virus therapies and progression, including the difficulties of enough resources. Ethical consideration tied to the psychological suffering resulting from activities or no action at all while handling Covid-19 patients infringes the moral standards of healthcare professionals.

Lessons Learnt from Psychological impact of Covid-19 on healthcare workers

According to Karbarkapa et al. (2020), healthcare workers ask their management and employers to be heard, protected, prepared, supported, and cared for by the employer. These five things are essential facts that we learn from the psychological impact of Covid-19 on healthcare workers. The call for help indicates that employers must constantly be reminded to provide early support that will safeguard the psychological stability of healthcare workers. The call to be prepared indicates their thirst for knowledge to deal with any novel outbreak. They were pushed into the raging fires with only their scalpels in their hands without prior knowledge of the pandemic, making them hard to cope. This led many healthcare workers to be the victims and fatality toll of Covid-19. The call to be protected indicates the despair and desperate situation of the healthcare workers. They were only reminded to sacrifice their lives to save the lives of others in the hospital. It was a demanding case despite being referred to as heroes at the time of the quest.

Another aspect learned from the study is that the higher incidence of COVID-19’s psychological effects on healthcare professionals warrants more consideration of this subgroup’s educational and policy treatments. Various authors have argued for behavioral and educational therapies emphasizing resiliency, positive thinking, social support, consistency, and other factors.

The results of various researchers show that psychological therapies must be developed to support post-traumatic development in healthcare workers. It is estimated that stress prevalence has significant ramifications for creating an intervention at a suitable time to deal with emerging PTSD at its initial stage, which might be helpful in the pandemic’s healing stages. Mental health remedies for healthcare workers and their well-being is pioneered by most of the researchers, including teaching coping mechanisms, engaging social wellness actions in the community, encouraging every effort of the healthcare workers, and opening lines of communication for help with the advent of depression and work pressure at crucial times to conserve the energy of the worker.

Future mitigations

Every department and field needs future emergency crisis planning, and medical professionals should do the same. Employers should care for those they are leading and make organizational strategies for staff well-being, consistent communication, and significant team support for the healthcare workforce to perform to their full potential over an extended period. Individual resiliency will be promoted in such a setting, and self-compassion and self-care will be encouraged. Once the immediate threat of COVID-19 has passed, various organizations and institutions should focus on developing an organizational culture of resilience that will help lessen the possibility of psychological torture and impact on healthcare workers and create a weekly routine to check on the condition of these workers.

To sustain an organizational culturally resilient environment, socio-psychological assistance should concentrate on organizational and personal traits. Previous outbreaks have shown that the organizational setting has a significant impact on the psychological consequences for healthcare workers and the entire workforce’s productivity framework. It is understood that organizational culture beliefs, leadership philosophies, and management interaction approaches play a significant role in employee stress management. Employee-to-employee communication and assistance in establishing instructions and safety precautions help lessen the possibilities of emotional discomfort in outbreak conditions. Socially attributed assistance and support groups may also help to reduce stress. Still, because of their busy schedules or worries about spreading the illness they are exposed to on the job, healthcare workers frequently neglect their friendships and family ties. Maintaining social interactions is becoming more complex, given the need for social distancing. There are detailed sections about healthcare employees suffering from harassment and social stigma due to public concern over catching the pandemic from individuals who have had the most exposure.

References

Son, H., Lee, W. J., Kim, H. S., Lee, K. S., & You, M. (2019). Hospital workers’ psychological resilience after the 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 47(2), 1-13.

Chew, Q. H., Wei, K. C., Vasoo, S., Chua, H. C., & Sim, K. (2020). A narrative synthesis of psychological and coping responses towards emerging infectious disease outbreaks in the general population: practical considerations for the COVID-19 pandemic. Singapore medical journal, 61(7), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2020046

Kisely, S., Warren, N., McMahon, L., Dallas, C., Henry, I., & Siskind, D. (2020). Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 369.

Si, M. Y., Su, X. Y., Jiang, Y., Wang, W. J., Gu, X. F., Ma, L., … & Qiao, Y. L. (2020). The psychological impact of COVID-19 on medical care workers in China. Infectious diseases of poverty, 9(1), 1-13.

Que, J., Shi, L. E., Deng, J., Liu, J., Zhang, L., Wu, S., … & Lu, L. (2020). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study in China. General psychiatry, 33(3).

Cabarkapa, S., Nadjidai, S. E., Murgier, J., & Ng, C. H. (2020). The psychological impact of COVID-19 and other viral epidemics on frontline healthcare workers and ways to address it: A rapid systematic review. Brain, behavior, & immunity-health, 8, 100144.

Batra, K., Singh, T. P., Sharma, M., Batra, R., & Schvaneveldt, N. (2020). Investigating the psychological impact of COVID-19 among healthcare workers: a meta-analysis. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(23), 9096.

Batra, K., Singh, T. P., Sharma, M., Batra, R., & Schvaneveldt, N. (2020). Investigating the psychological impact of COVID-19 among healthcare workers: a meta-analysis. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(23), 9096.

Lasalvia, A., Bonetto, C., Porru, S., Carta, A., Tardivo, S., Bovo, C., … & Amaddeo, F. (2021). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in a highly burdened area of north-east Italy. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 30, e1.

Giusti, E. M., Pedroli, E., D’Aniello, G. E., Stramba Badiale, C., Pietrabissa, G., Manna, C., … & Molinari, E. (2020). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on health professionals: a cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1684.

The Role Of Culture In Determining Resilience Among Marginalised Populations: A Review Of Resilience Literature Essay Example

Abstract

This literature review suggests that the present discussion on resilience overlooks the significance of cultural factors in shaping resilience among marginalised groups. This study emphasises the necessity to acknowledge the cultural and societal aspects that promote resilience, even though resilience has been extensively researched and regarded as an individual quality. This analysis underscores the necessity of including cultural variables in formulating interventions and policies to aid disadvantaged populations by investigating the intersections of culture, identity, and resilience. In its final section, the review stresses the need to consider cultural contexts while studying resilience.

Introduction

In recent years, the topic of resilience has received much attention from researchers in fields as diverse as psychology, sociology, and public health. In the face of adversity, individual and societal resilience has been the focus of resilience literature. Although there is a growing corpus of literature on resilience, the role of culture in building resilience among marginalised communities still needs to be understood. This paper contends that the present resilience literature needs to pay more attention to culture’s role in determining resilience among vulnerable groups. The purpose of this literature review is to assess where our knowledge of the function of culture in building resilience among marginalised communities stands at present. By highlighting these blind spots, this report hopes to contribute new knowledge that might guide future efforts to strengthen the resilience of underserved communities. In particular, this research investigates the role that demographic characteristics, such as race, socioeconomic level, gender, and sexual orientation, play in the emergence of resilience among marginalised groups. In addition, this paper critiques the literature for not considering the perspectives of those underrepresented in works on resilience.

Statement of Problem

The resilience literature needs to be critiqued for its insufficient consideration of cultural factors in gaining knowledge of resilience development across populations. Studies focusing on vulnerable groups, such as recent immigrants or refugees, have highlighted the need for researchers to consider cultural aspects while examining resilience (Ungar, 2013). Existing research acknowledges the importance of resilience in dealing with adversity but tends to ignore the role that cultural norms, values, and beliefs play. In marginalised areas, where cultural variables play a crucial role in moulding individuals’ experiences and coping techniques, this omission leads to incomplete knowledge of resilience and its development. Individuals’ experiences of hardship and their methods for overcoming it can be influenced by cultural variables, including language, values, beliefs, and social standards (Masten et al., 2021). Cultural competency is crucial for the success of resilience interventions, as research has shown that cultural characteristics can substantially influence resilience development across diverse populations (Masten et al., 2021). Hence, there is a considerable void in the existing literature regarding an in-depth comprehension of the function of culture in resilience development among excluded communities.

Literature Review

The concept of resilience is multifaceted, including research and applications in domains as diverse as psychology, sociology, and public health. Cultural resilience, defined as “the capacity of individuals and communities to resist and recover from the effects of cultural oppression, discrimination, and marginalisation,” is a notion that has just recently begun to be studied by academics. How Black, Asian, and other minority ethnic communities have adapted to racism and prejudice is an example of cultural resilience among at-risk groups. The impacts of prejudice can be mitigated, according to studies, when people of color can draw strength from their shared cultural traditions and identities (Sims-Schouten & Gilbert, 2022). Indigenous communities are another example of cultural resilience because they have managed to preserve their ways of life while enduring centuries of colonisation and subjugation. Maintaining one’s cultural identity and customs has been linked to improved mental health and decreased rates of substance misuse among Indigenous peoples (Wendt et al., 2019). Understanding how individuals and communities can draw on their cultural history and traditions to endure and recover from the effects of social exclusion and prejudice is central to the concept of cultural resilience. Researchers can help marginalised groups thrive and gain agency if they acknowledge and foster cultural resilience among them.

Literature on resilience has largely overlooked the significance of culture in fostering resilience, even though it is essential for vulnerable groups. Unfortunately, the more significant social and cultural factors that shape resilience have mainly been ignored in the current literature’s focus on individual-level factors like coping strategies and personal traits. This is a severe shortcoming due to the importance of cultural factors in determining how marginalised groups react to and cope with adversity. For instance, studies have demonstrated that cultural values and beliefs can influence an individual’s stress response (Masten et al., 2021). Hence, a limited understanding of the factors contributing to or inhibiting resilience among marginalised communities can result from disregarding the cultural environment in which resilience development occurs. In addition, many current works are based on Western cultural suppositions and norms that may need to be revised (Sims-Schouten & Gilbert, 2022). Because of this Eurocentric bias, efforts to produce culturally relevant interventions have been hampered, and indigenous knowledge and traditions for bolstering resilience have been largely ignored. The development of effective interventions for marginalised populations needs to be improved by the current resilience literature’s inadequate understanding of culture.

There needs to be more information about how cultural factors contribute to resilience in the literature, even though researchers have been working hard to fill up other gaps in their understanding of the concept. To overcome the unique obstacles faced by marginalised groups, it is necessary to get a better appreciation of their cultural setting. Cultural displacement, discrimination, and the resulting sense of isolation and loss of identity are everyday experiences for refugees and immigrants. Resilience among these groups is strongly influenced by cultural factors like religious beliefs and practices, family values, and social support networks (Ungar, 2013). In addition, Indigenous populations have been disadvantaged historically and structurally, leading to a decline in cultural pride and a break from long-held customs. The literature implies that Indigenous communities’ resilience can be bolstered through a cultural revival and promotion of cultural practices. Culture is vital in giving those on the margins the strength to persevere. Researchers have found that immigrant and refugee populations benefit from cultural traditions like prayer, storytelling, and traditional healing (Ager et al., 2015). Traditional knowledge, land-based activities, and revitalising Indigenous languages are all cultural practices that increase resilience in Indigenous communities. However, cultural factors in the formation of resilience still need to be understood in the present resilience literature. The relevance of cultural context in shaping resilience is often overlooked in the literature in favour of an emphasis on individual attributes. This void in the literature highlights the importance of resilience research with cultural sensitivity in mind.

Risk and Protective Factors for Resilience

Both risk and protective factors play a role in the resilience of traditionally excluded groups. Poverty, prejudice, and emotional or mental health problems are all risk factors that can weaken a person’s ability to bounce back. However, resilience can be bolstered by protective characteristics, including social support, robust connections, and ready access to resources. Furthermore, risk factors’ effects on resilience might be tempered by protective factors. Access to healthcare and education are examples of community-level protective factors that can significantly positively affect resilience among vulnerable groups. Recognising and addressing the influence of risk factors on resilience is essential, but so is encouraging protective variables to increase resilience among vulnerable populations. Community-level protective factors and socioeconomic determinants of health can be improved through policy and intervention implementation.

Many buffering factors have been linked to enhanced resilience. Protective factors can originate from the individual and their immediate surroundings as they develop into adults. Models of resilience have typically shown it as a feature that remains constant across time. However, modern theories of resilience emphasise a transactional-ecological model of human development, in which growth occurs due to ongoing interaction between the individual and the environment (Betancourt & Khan, 2008). Exciting new studies in this area look into the neurobiology of stress and adaptation, for example, with the hope of charting the effects of trauma on brain growth and function (Ungar, 2013). There is mounting evidence that individuals respond differently biologically to positive and sinister events, highlighting the need for intervention at an early age. This study can help guide the design and timing of interventions by providing a model of when people are most vulnerable to harm and when they are most capable of bouncing back from it (Ungar, 2013). The transactional-ecological paradigm has widespread scholarly support since it suggests that individuals’ outcomes result from exchanges between the individuals and their surroundings. Individual traits or temperament, familial features or resources, and extrafamilial environmental influences or assets are the three main protective factors identified by resilience research.

Implications for Interventions

The evidence from resilience research suggests that treatments should consider the reciprocal, transactional relationships between the person and their environment. At the same time, efforts to enhance isolated protective characteristics are unlikely helpful (Lutha & Cicchetti, 2007). Research has also shown the beneficial cumulative effect of protective variables; thus, an intervention that takes a more holistic approach is more likely to succeed. The best interventions, it is believed, use preexisting organisations like the community and academics to guarantee a support structure is in place not just during the intervention period but also afterwards (Lutha & Cicchetti, 2007). Interventions to foster a feeling of community and social cohesion can fall under this category, as can efforts to improve the economic security of underprivileged groups (Lebiecki & Stickney, 2018). Treatments should prioritise building resiliency-promoting strengths like social support, hope, and problem-solving abilities (Houston et al., 2016).

Research has brought up the issue that the already strained mental health services are needed even more now because of the many recent terrible natural catastrophes and the global economic crisis (Williams & Hazell, 2011). In order to develop the most efficient evidence-based interventions, combining philosophical and practical resilience paradigms is essential. The developmental and cultural needs of individuals in “high-risk” settings have been at the centre of recent research focusing on implementing specialised youth care (Williams & Hazell, 2011). Studies have shown that helping families before a crisis occurs is more cost-effective than helping them during it (Patterson, 2002). Costs associated with special education, incarceration, lost income, and government assistance programs decrease when interventions are successful (Lutha & Cicchetti, 2007). Resilience should be fostered at all levels of society, including the individual, the family, and the community.

Some scholars have questioned resilience’s relevance because they believe it is unnecessary when discussing vulnerable populations or crafting preventative measures (Lutha & Cicchetti, 2007). For instance, resilience has yet to be used in developing many successful preventative treatments. However, when the resilience paradigm is implemented, it captures the prospect of success despite obstacles and probes the systems and contexts that make resilience possible (Au & Shean, 2015). Personnel can increase their capacity to embrace resilience-building tactics by drawing from a wide range of studies already conducted on the subject. Clinicians can learn from resilience-building interventions because they teach them to concentrate less on patients’ weaknesses and more on their abilities and strengths.

The current concept of resilience is “usual enchantment,” the conviction that one can overcome obstacles and achieve one’s goals. First, the concept’s multifaceted nature will likely be the focus of future studies, and second, the relationship between hazards and protective variables. Protective factors should be bolstered through effective preventive interventions within mental health services (Lutha & Cicchetti, 2007). Promoting resilience is especially important when working with vulnerable communities because it is sometimes impossible to prevent mistreatment and abuse (Williams & Hazell, 2011).

Conclusion

Whilst the literature on resilience has come a long way in its understanding of the numerous components that contribute to resilience among individuals and communities, it still needs a complete grasp of the role of culture in fostering resilience among marginalised populations. The interconnectedness of various cultural aspects, such as language, religion, and spirituality, is essential to consider when addressing the needs of marginalised people. A more comprehensive understanding of resilience that considers the cultural elements that shape it requires that future research prioritise the inclusion of various viewpoints and experiences. By doing so, we can better assist underserved populations and guarantee that resilience initiatives meet the specific requirements of these groups.

References

Ager, J., Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., & Ager, A. (2015). Local Faith Communities and the Promotion of Resilience in Contexts of Humanitarian Crisis. Journal of Refugee Studies, 28(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fev001

Au, V., & Shean, M. (2015). Current theories relating to resilience and young people A literature review. https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/-/media/ResourceCentre/PublicationsandResources/Mental-health/Current-theories-relating-to-resilience-and-young-people.pdf?la=en&hash=3DFACAE0B3CC3554DA74B98C04DF42FD845F108F

Betancourt, T. S., & Khan, K. T. (2008). The mental health of children affected by armed conflict: Protective processes and pathways to resilience. International Review of Psychiatry, 20(3), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540260802090363

Lutha, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2007). The construct of resilience: implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 857–885. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1903337/

Masten, A. S., Lucke, C. M., Nelson, K. M., & Stallworthy, I. C. (2021). Resilience in Development and Psychopathology: Multisystem Perspectives. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-120307

Patterson, J. M. (2002). Understanding family resilience. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10019

Sims-Schouten, W., & Gilbert, P. (2022). Revisiting “resilience” in light of racism, “othering”, and resistance. Race & Class, 11(21), 030639682210938. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968221093882

Ungar, M. (2013). Resilience, Trauma, Context, and Culture. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013487805

Wendt, D. C., Hartmann, W. E., Allen, J., Burack, J. A., Charles, B., D’Amico, E. J., Dell, C. A., Dickerson, D. L., Donovan, D. M., Gone, J. P., O’Connor, R. M., Radin, S. M., Rasmus, S. M., Venner, K. L., & Walls, M. L. (2019). Substance Use Research with Indigenous Communities: Exploring and Extending Foundational Principles of Community Psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(1-2), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12363

Werner, E. E. (2000). Protective Factors and Individual Resilience. Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention, 11(12), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511529320.008

Williams, R., & Hazell, P. (2011). Austerity, poverty, resilience, and the future of mental health services for children and adolescents. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(4), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1097/yco.0b013e328347f299

The Role Of Vaccine Hesitancy In The Orthodox Jewish Community Of Brooklyn Writing Sample

Introduction

Vaccines are essential for protecting individuals from diseases, and the Orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn is no exception. This paper will discuss the vaccine and vaccination concept in the Orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn.

Role of vaccination

According to the World Health Organization, vaccines utilize the body’s natural defenses to protect individuals from getting different harmful diseases. The body will produce antibodies to fight the germ when exposed to it through vaccination. These antibodies will stay in the body, so when the body reencounters the germ, it should not get as sick. Vaccines are vital in close-knit communities like the Orthodox Jewish communities of Brooklyn, as sickness can spread quickly due to crowded conditions and large families living in small apartments (WHO, 2021). a smaller space.

Orthodox views on vaccinations

The Orthodox Jewish community, particularly in Brooklyn, has been surrounded by controversy due to the three vaccines MMR, HPV, and COVID. In the United States, reported measles cases for 2020 jumped to an all-time high since 1992 of 1,282, with most cases concentrated in the under-vaccinated Orthodox communities in New York City (WHO, 2020). According to the Jewish religious laws, Halacha, the concept of “pikuach nefesh” orders preserving life over almost all other religious beliefs and responsibilities (Muravsky et al., 2021). it has been supported by many religious leaders, who have advocated for universal vaccination, even on the Sabbath, dating back to the smallpox outbreak. In 2018, two major Orthodox organizations put out a statement supporting vaccination, accountability for well-being, and averting sabotage and ailment to others (Orthodox Union, 2018). Rabbi Aaron Glatt further emphasized this, saying that it is essential for all Jews to vaccinate against preventable and deadly illnesses, such as measles and COVID-19. Ultra-orthodox Rabbi Weiss also spoke out, saying anyone who refrains from vaccinating when the community can prevent outbreaks or pandemics is acting immorally (Times of Israel, 2020). In response to the 2018 measles outbreak, the cardinal rabbinic adjudicator of the Chicago Rabbinical Council has also put out a statement saying that every member of the community, including children, must get vaccinated (Muravsky et al., 2021).

Views of Covid 19 vaccine acceptance

Rabbis from the Orthodox abutment and the Rabbinical conclave of America have declared their support for the COVID-19 vaccine, claiming its benefits outweigh any potential risks. It was expressed in the “COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance” (Orthodox Union, 2020). Numerous other Jewish organizations have also been vocal in backing the vaccine, stressing the concerns of wearing the veil, washing hands, and preserving social disjunction to avoid spreading the virus.

Reason for vaccine hesitancy

One of the main reasons is the notion of “pikuach nefesh,” an ancient Jewish law order preserving life over almost every other religious belief and responsibility (Muravsky et al., 2021). This concept has been interpreted in numerous ways, and some Orthodox Jews believe that vaccines are against their religious beliefs and could be potentially harmful. Another reason is the need for more assurance in the medical association and the authority, possibly due to past experiences of discrimination and mistrust, leading to a lack of confidence in the vaccine (Morgan et al., 2022).

Risk of vaccine hesitancy

Vaccine hesitancy can increase preventable illnesses (Stein et al.,2020). Additionally, it can lead to the spread of misinformation and false beliefs, which can further lead to a decrease in vaccine uptake (Garett & Young, 2021). It can be hazardous in close-knit communities, as illnesses can spread quickly due to crowded conditions and large families living in small apartments.

Sources of vaccine information and communication

There are numerous sources of vaccine information and communication available to the public. These include the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, media outlets such as newspapers and television, and medical professionals such as doctors and nurses (Osuagwu et al., 2023). Additionally, Jewish organizations such as the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America provide guidance and support for vaccinations (Muravsky et al., 2021).

Evaluating the credibility and accuracy of sources

The credibility and accuracy of vaccine information sources should always be considered. Not all information is created equal; some sources may be biased or contain false information (Stasiuk et al.,2021). It is also essential to look at the source’s credentials and evaluate the information’s quality.

Role, responsibility, and engagement of relevant sectors

The role of the government and education sectors is essential to advance vaccination compliance. Governments should provide accurate and up-to-date vaccine information and ensure policies are in place to encourage vaccine uptake (Pilichowsk et al.,2021). The education sector should also ensure that students receive accurate vaccine information and provide resources for healthcare workers to help address any hesitancy or misinformation.

Proposed communication strategy

Given the challenges to vaccine acceptance, it is essential to have a communication strategy tailored to the Orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn. In order to do this, it is essential to have a multisectoral approach that involves the government, education, and healthcare sectors (Carmody et al., 2021). It is also essential to have a communication strategy tailored to the community’s needs, such as using religious leaders and cultural figures to emphasize the importance of vaccines, providing accurate information in various languages, and using various media outlets to spread the message (Adebesi et al., 2021).

Recommendations

In order to advance compliance with vaccination, it is crucial to have a communication strategy tailored to the needs of the Orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn. This strategy should involve a multisectoral approach that involves the government, education, and healthcare sectors.

Conclusion

Vaccines are essential for protecting individuals from diseases, and the Orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn is no exception. Vaccine hesitancy is a significant issue in this community, and it is crucial to have a communication strategy tailored to the community’s needs. This strategy should involve a multisectoral approach that involves the government, education, and healthcare sectors. It is also vital to provide accurate information and to utilize various media outlets and technology to reach a larger audience. By having a tailored communication strategy, it is possible to increase vaccine uptake in the Orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn.

References

Adebisi, Y. A., Rabe, A., & Lucero-Prisno III, D. E. (2021). Risk communication and community engagement strategies for COVID-19 in 13 African countries. Health Promotion Perspectives11(2), 137. https://doi.org 10.34172/hpp.2021.18

Carmody, E.R., Zander D, Klein, E.J, Mulligan, M.J, Caplan, A.L. (2021). Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Covid-19 and Vaccines Among a New York Haredi-Orthodox Jewish Community. J Community Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127857/

Garett, R., & Young, S. D. (2021). Online misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Translational behavioral medicine11(12) https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibab128

Morgan, K. M., Maglalang, D. D., Monnig, M. A., Ahluwalia, J. S., Avila, J. C., & Sokolovsky, A. W. (2022). Medical Mistrust, Perceived Discrimination, and Race: A Longitudinal Analysis of Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in US Adults. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 1-10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40615-022-01368-6

Muravsky, N. L., Betesh, G. M., & McCoy, R. G. (2021). Religious doctrine and attitudes toward vaccination in Jewish law. Journal of Religion and Health, pp. 1–16. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10943-021-01447-8.pdf

Orthodox Union. (2018). “Statement on Vaccinations from the OU and Rabbinical Council of America.” Posted November 14, 2018. Retrieved January 2, 2021, from https://www.ou.org/news/statement-vaccinations-ou-rabbinical-council-america/.

Orthodox Union. (2020). “COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance.” Presented by the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America. (2020). https://www.ou.org/assets/Guidance-re-Vaccines.pdf

Osuagwu, U. L., Mashige, K. P., Ovenseri-Ogbomo, G., Envuladu, E. A., Abu, E. K., Miner, C. A., … & Agho, K. E. (2023). The impact of information sources on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health23(1), 38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-022-14972-2

Pilichowski, E., Scarpetta, S., Brezzi, M., Colombo, F., Lopert, R., & Wenzi, M. (2021). Enhancing public trust in COVID-19 vaccination: the role of governments. OECD Proc., 3-27.

Stasiuk, K., Polak, M., Dolinski, D., & Maciuszek, J. (2021). The credibility of health information sources as predictors of attitudes toward vaccination—the results from a longitudinal study in Poland. Vaccines9(8), 933. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9080933

Stein, Z.C., Abramson, N., & Shoob, H. (2020). “Notes from the Field: Large Measles Outbreak in Orthodox Jewish Communities – Jerusalem District, Israel, 2018–2019.” MMWR Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report 69(18): 562–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6918a3

World Health Organization (2021) Vaccines and immunization: What is vaccination? https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization