SS 290 Module 1 Competency Assessment

Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!

Note:  All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.

SS 290 Module 1 Competency Assessment

Fybia Benjamin

University

SS290 M1

May, 2024

Introduction

Seasonal influenza, commonly known as the flu, is an acute respiratory infection caused by influenza viruses and occurs worldwide. Most individuals recover without the need for treatment, while others need treatment. The flu spreads quickly from person to person through coughing or sneezing. Therefore, it is a significant public health concern. This literature review examines different kinds of vaccines, as vaccination is the most effective method of prevention. Three articles are chosen to provide knowledge on flu vaccines and their efficiency. Each of the articles has its own approach and technique to combat flu. Thus, after going through all of them, our goal is to compare them based on different factors and evaluate which article is more effective and which article has weaknesses.

Differences Among the Three Articles

Addressing Differences in Audiences 

The intended audience of the three articles is slightly different. The article by Lewis et al. is published in Clinical Infectious Diseases. Since it talks about the epidemiology of HPV, the intended audience is the researchers, public health officers, and medical practitioners involved in vaccine development. Another article by Tenforde et al. from the same journal is also written for a wide audience. Which includes researchers, healthcare providers, policymakers, and public health workers. Thus, highlighting the journal’s focus on policy and practice. As mentioned in the specifics of article 3, the article is targeted at researchers and public health. Also for those in the field of epidemiology (Balasubramani et al., 2020). Especially the one related to the geographical disparity of the epidemiology of influenza and the effectiveness of vaccines.

Addressing Ways of Knowing 

Concerning the methods of knowledge acquisition, there are differences between the articles. Article 1 uses data from the CDC’s Influenza VE Network to offer a precise overview of VE by applying genetic sequencing (Lewis et al., 2023). Compared to Article 1, Article 2 is based on more sources and employs observational studies (Tenforde et al., 2020). It provides a broad understanding of VE depending on age and geographical area. Similar to Article 3, empirical data from the CDC’s network is employed. However, the focus is on the regional and geographical differences in epidemiology. 

Addressing Strengths of Argument 

The argumentprovided by Lewis et al. in Article 1 is strong due to the inclusion of strong empirical data. The genetic sequencing is also the reason when it comes to explaining differences in VE with a good deal of depth. Just like in the case of Article 2, the conclusion that has been drawn is also warranted based on empirical analysis. It is done by demographics as well as regions in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of VE. Despite the coverage of all known facets of the research, Article 3 by Balasubramani et al. suffers from the lack of sufficient sample sizes and variations across regions, which weakens the argument to a moderate extent.

Addressing the Use of Data 

Data in Article 1 is used widely and in detail. It describes several seasons and sites and uses genetic data of the virus strains (Lewis et al., 2023). In the same way, Tenforde et al., in Article 2, employs great data utilization. It uses abundant data from the CDC and provides information on different regions and age groups. Article 3 employs data from different seasons (Balasubramani et al., 2020). The authors define limitations concerning sample size and regional differences. Which somewhat reduces their use of data. 

Addressing Biases

Geographical bias might be observed in Article 1 because of the variation in the virus strains and the type of vaccines used at different centers. Some of the biases that may occur while using Article 2 include ways in which the data is interpreted. Article 2 may contain some biases like region and age (Tenforde et al., 2020). Potential sources of bias in Article 3 are related to the sample size and the influence of other differences among the sites that have not been controlled for. 

Initial Appeal and Selection for Research

Article That Appealed the Most At The First Sight 

Initially, I found Article 1 most suitable because of the detailed application of genetic sequencing in describing the difference in vaccine efficacy (Lewis et al., 2023). The detailed empirical data and the method used make the argument even stronger and scientifically persuasive. It makes it rather engaging. 

Article Selected for the Research Paper

Out of the three articles, if I have to choose for the purpose of a research paper. Then, I would prefer to choose Article 1 (Lewis et al., 2023). The extensive use of empirical data alongside genetic sequencing gives the research a rich and detailed understanding of the differences in VE. It would form a solid background for a research paper. First, as the study of different strains and the geographical distribution of these strains is among its primary concerns. It can be considered highly applicable for a study on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine. 

In conclusion, although all the articles provide valuable information about the efficacy of influenza vaccines, Article 1 is the most suitable for further research owing to a rather comprehensive methodology and proper use of genetic data.