Analysis of a Public Health Article
The article is about a study that was conducted to estimate the effectiveness of a strain-specific vaccine for the group B meningococcal disease in New Zealand. This study was conducted among pre-school aged children. The purpose of the article is to show the effectiveness of the vaccine after it was administered to individuals aged less than 20 years. The main argument in the article is that unvaccinated children are more likely to contract the epidemic strain meningococcal disease compared to children who have been vaccinated (Andrews & Pollard, 2014). This argument is very convincing through the statistics provided as a result of the study. The article states that the article was 80% effective hence supporting the main argument.
The study highlighted in the article assumes that the children being studied remain in the same DHB (district health boards) during the entire follow-up period. This assumption could have an impact on the outcome of the study since children who are in a different DHB are likely to have a different risk of exposure (Ladhani, Ramsay & Pollard, 2016). In this case, those children who changed DHB were more likely to contract epidemic strain, this creates a major limitation with the study as most children are expected to move to neighboring DHB or even further away which can lead to exposure to the disease. Additionally, the unvaccinated population in New Zealand will, therefore, depend on the estimated population which is likely to give accurate conclusions. However, the article gives a clear illustration of how important the vaccine is in combating the epidemic strain meningococcal B disease through the statistics of its effectiveness. The article is similar to studies such as the studies that were conducted in the USA and Europe among adolescents. They were given a Trumenba vaccine for the serogroup B meningococcal disease and it was 80% effective in the adolescents used in the study (Contorni, Kazzaz & Ugozzoli, 2016) Therefore, to improve the accuracy of the findings, an adequate analysis of the cases for epidemic strain or laboratory- confirmed is necessary to avoid misclassification error.
The article has efficiently given an understanding of the effectiveness of the vaccine in children. This has been done through the clear illustrations of the methods used and the results explained. The statistical data provided also supports the main argument in the article that the vaccine reduces the risk of the group B meningococcal disease.
In conclusion, the article analyses the effectiveness of the vaccine. According to the research findings, those children who were vaccinated were less likely to contract the meningococcal disease as compared to those who are not vaccinated. Therefore, the effectiveness of the vaccine was projected to be 80% after vaccination. Therefore, by the use of the doses administered to all the participants under the age of twenty in New Zealand, the study clearly supports the effectiveness of the vaccine in the fight against epidemic strain following the 2 years after the use of the vaccine.
References
Andrews, S. M., & Pollard, A. J. (2014). A vaccine against serogroup B Neisseria meningitidis: dealing with uncertainty. The Lancet infectious diseases, 14(5), 426-434.
Contorni, M., Kazzaz, J., Ugozzoli, M. (2016). U.S. Patent Application No. 15/011,216.
Galloway, Y., Green, P., McNicholas, A., & O’Hallan, J. (2008). Use of an observational cohort study to estimate the effectiveness of the group B meningococcal vaccine in children aged under 5 years. Oxford Press
Ladhani, S. N., Ramsay,& Pollard, A. J. (2016). Enter B and W: two new meningococcal vaccine programmes launched. Archives of disease in childhood, 101(1), 91-95.
