1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Global vaccination coverage remains only at 85%, with no significant

changes during the past few years. An additional 1.5 million deaths could be

avoided, however if global immunization coverage improves (WHO, 2018).

In the national setting, we have fallen behind in routine immunization that

protects children from diseases such as measles, diphtheria and hepatitis B

(UNICEF, 2018). Of the 5,450 measles cases recorded nationwide, for example,

between January to April of 2018, 905 cases were confirmed as measles and 15

of it led to death. Compared to last year's 24 confirmed measles cases, the

numbers are up by 3,671% as per reports from the DOH-Epidemiology Bureau

(Castillo, J., 2018). The cases of measles in 2018 increased 52 times compared

to the same period in 2017. Davao City is first among the top 5 municipalities

with confirmed cases in 2018. In 1,929 cases of measles in the Philippines,

Davao city had 238 cases with 7 deaths. Around 32% of these cases were

acquired by children who are not vaccinated (VPD-Department of Health, 2018).

The availability of vaccines is also a contributing to the low immunization

coverage nationwide in the recent years, according to the Department of Health,

only 6 out of 10 children were getting their scheduled vaccinations.

This should not be a concern if only the Republic Act 10152 or “The

Mandatory Infants and Children Health Immunization Act of 2011” – which says
 2

that the mandatory basic immunization for vaccine-preventable diseases shall be

given for free at any government hospital or health center to infant and children

up to five years of age - has been strongly implemented throughout the country

(Philstar, 2019).

Worldwide, the recommended vaccine set in the global immunization

coverage of the World Health Organization includes Haemophilus influenza type

b (Hib), Hepatitis B, Human Papillomavirus (HPV), MMR, Meningitis A,

Pneumococcal diseases, Polio, Rotaviruses, Tetanus and Yellow Fever vaccines

(WHO, 2018). In the Philippines, the routine immunization includes Tetanus,

Diphtheria, Pertussis (Tdap), MMR, Polio and Influenza (International Association

for Medical Assistance to Travellers, 2018).

The gap lies between the reoccurring outbreaks and the solutions and

interventions provided by the government. Despite the actions of the Department

of Health, outbreaks are still arising in the community. Some of the interventions

made are the National Ligtas Tigdas Supplemental Immunization Activity (SIA)

targeting infants and children 6-59 months of age with measles containing

vaccine regardless of immunization status and the Expanded Program on

Immunization (EPI) which started way back in 1976 up to this day. The ever

consistent goal of the EPI is to ensure that infants/children and mothers have

access to routinely recommended infant/childhood vaccines. Six vaccine-

preventable diseases were initially included in the EPI: tuberculosis, poliomyelitis,

diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and measles (Department of Health, 2018). These

vaccines are free at public healthcare centers throughout the country; yet
 3

vaccine-preventable diseases which are supposed to be eradicated are still

emerging in different parts of the nation. The Davao City Epidemiological

Surveillance Unit (Davao CESU) recorded 22 measles deaths from January to

September 2018.In the data from CESU, there are 602 suspected cases of

measles in the city from January to September of this year and 45 of those are

confirmed cases. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported over 17,200

measles cases in the Philippines in 2018 or 367 percent increase compared to

year 2017. In the same year, Chief Technical Division of the CHO, Dr. Julinda

Acosta, also confirmed that the school-based immunization program continued to

have a low turnout and this has become a problem (SunStar, 2018).

Measles vaccination in Davao city is 64% short (City Health Office, 2018).

Despite the solutions presented and implemented by the government, some

children remain unvaccinated. The Davao City Health Office (CHO) has

immunized 55,021 children with measles vaccine starting November to January

in the year 2018. But this is only less than 50 percent or 36 percent of the

151,468 target (SunStar, 2018). Regardless of how effective vaccinations are in

lowering the rates of certain diseases, it will not be successful without the

cooperation of parents.

According to the vaccine hesitancy theory, contributing factors that affect

parental decision-making towards vaccination can be categorized as social,

cultural, political, socioeconomic, and personal. However, the underlying themes

under each category are yet to be identified. These themes serve as the exact

reasons as to why some parents reject immunization for their children.

 4

This study aims to identify the factors affecting parental decision on

childhood vaccination in Davao City. The researchers would like to explore and

uncover underlying dimensions or themes that affect the decision-making of a

parent and also to help the government develop a more effective and efficient

solution towards the current problems of their implementations. Reasons that

keep other children who are not vaccinated can be attributed to the determinants

of vaccine hesitancy - social, cultural, political and personal. Hence, the

government can identify how they can accurately improve their health services by

applying the underlying themes obtained in this study.

Worldview of Theoretical Lens

Constructivism is a learning theory found in psychology which explains

how people might acquire knowledge and learn. It therefore has direct application

to education. The theory suggests that humans construct knowledge and

meaning from their experiences. The learner has prior knowledge and

experiences, which is often determined by their environment. Learning is

therefore done by people “constructing” knowledge out of their experiences

(Crotty,1998).

This study is centered towards parents that had reasons in not to

vaccinate their child in terms of their social environment or being influenced by

external factors. The study is a constructivism type since it is based on the

emphasis that there are existing problems in relation to real-world situations. The

data garnered from the survey in relation to the real-life experiences of parents
 5

towards vaccination were in the form of themes and constructs will be analyzed.

Hence, it will recognize that their own backgrounds shape their interpretation,

and they position themselves in the research to acknowledge how their

interpretation flows from their personal, cultural, and historical experiences.

Audience

This study is directed and given benefit to the following:

Parents. To be able to guide them into the real essentiality of childhood

vaccination and most specially to allow them to contribute to the community by

getting them involved and voice out their perspectives.

Health organizations (Department of Health and World Health

Organization). To be able to present factors affecting parental decision on

childhood vaccination and contribute to the improvement and efficacy of the

future interventions that the health organizations will provide in order to solve

community dilemmas regarding infectious disease outbreak.

The educators. The study may able to help future researchers in

modifying or improving the study and help employ the knowledge about the

importance of vaccination and encourage the parents on how they can contribute

to the community.

Future researchers. The study may become a tool to achieve better

outcomes and bigger impact to the community.

 6

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the underlying factors that

affect the parents’ decision-making towards vaccination for their children. In this

study, we were able to determine these factors by performing qualitative followed

by quantitative research assessing the parents’ perception about vaccination.

Also, to determine the reasons as to why there is an increase numbers of

vaccine rejection and hesitancy.

Research Questionnaires

This study aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What are the reasons why parents do not allow their children to be

vaccinated?

2. What questions can be derived from the reasons why parents do not allow

their children to be vaccinated?

3. What is the mean score of each item derived from the reasons of the parents’

decision on vaccination towards their children?

4. What are the underlying factors in parents’ decision towards vaccination of

their children?

5. What is the level of internal reliability of each factor determined after factor

analysis?

6. What is the mean level of each determined factor that affects parents’ decision

towards vaccination of their children of Barangay 23-C, Davao City?

 7

Null Hypothesis:

1. There are no underlying dimensions in parent’s decision towards

vaccination of their children.

Theoretical Framework

This study was anchored on the theory of Vaccine Hesitancy (Dubé E.,

Laberge C., Guay M., et. al., 2013). According to this theory, there is still no

exact model that can explain the hesitance towards vaccination. The underlying

dimensions or contributing factors towards parental decision-making are wide-

ranged and the possible attitudes and behaviors about vaccination are difficult to

clear out. However, these can be categorized under social, cultural, political,

economic, and personal.

Media plays an important role in our life. It can spread misinformation

about vaccination and by changing the people perceptions about vaccines. By

these, it will create a stigma that could influence the parent’s decision-making.

According to the journalist Seth Mnookin (2013), the media played a role

in keeping vaccination scares alive, it even holds and hides an evidence on how

vaccination is safe and effective which causes a decreased uptake of vaccine

because of the controversy. In addition, the internet also plays a role on

vaccination by giving opportunities of the anti-vaccination activist to be vocal by

disseminating rumors, myths and inaccurate beliefs.

Vaccination refusal is, in some cases associated with philosophical

convictions or beliefs regarding health and immunity, such as a preference for

 8

"natural" over "artificial" medicine. Refusal of vaccine has also been associated

with strong religious convictions by opposing vaccinations. Politics and public

trust can also lead to vaccine risk perception. Policies that mandate vaccination

is controversial because of the personal freedom that is being imposed.

Therefore, an increased number of parents disapproved of mandatory

vaccination regardless of its benefits.

Another factor is the unequal distribution of vaccines throughout the city

due to the economic status of the government that results to limited access on

vaccine.

Many studies have demonstrated that parents who vaccinate their child

have limited information or knowledge on vaccination compared with parents who

refuse to vaccinate. Parent decision-making regarding vaccination is complex. It

has many factors that have been identified: fear of side effects, lack of a provider

recommendation to be vaccinated, beliefs regarding the efficacy and usefulness

of vaccines, distrust, lack of awareness of the need to be vaccinated, etc. Often,

these barriers are presented as discrete and measurable variables leading to

vaccination refusal.

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework represents the researcher's synthesis of literature

on how to explain a phenomenon. It maps out the actions required in the course
 9

of the study given his previous knowledge of other researchers' point of view and

his observations on the subject of research (Regoniel, Patrick A.).

Experiences of Factors that

Parents affecting Follow- determine Parental
Decision towards up with Parental Decision to
Vaccination Decision (quan) Vaccination
(QUAL)

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study

As shown in figure 1. The experiences of the parents towards

vaccination will determine the possible factors that may affect the outcome of

parental decisions towards Vaccination of their children. The experiences will be

determined using qualitative approach. The experiences will be translated into

domains to determine the factors that affects parental decision towards

vaccination.

Scope and Delimitation

The general aim of this study was to evaluate and present the foundation

of a parent’s decision on vaccinations with the focus on Barangay 23-C,

Poblacion District, Davao City only.

This study mainly identified different factors that yielded to a parental

decision whether or not to provide vaccination to their children. Also, this study

desired to identify on how the researchers can develop and assist parents in
 10

modeling their perspectives and know the importance of vaccination to improve

the health of their children and impart it to people with lack of knowledge towards

vaccination.

Definition of Terms

a. Childhood Vaccination - Administering vaccines to children to

create immunity against a disease.

b. Parental decision – refers to a set of rights and privileges that

children have with their parents and with those adults who have a

significant role in the child's life as the basis of their relationship.

c. Factors - Things that influence the decision making of parents.

 11

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter includes the ideas, finished thesis, and generalization of

conclusions and others. This also helps in familiarizing information that is

relevant and similar to the present study.

Related Literature

The development of vaccines is one of the most important advances in the

history of medicine, but in recent years, vaccination has declined in many regions

of the world, especially in cases such as the combined Measles, Mumps and

Rubella (MMR) vaccination therefore preventing the eradication of the said

diseases. However, in an overall perspective, the key contributing factors are

social, cultural, political, socioeconomic, and personal.

Social media, while a fertile ground for the activities of anti-vaccine

activists, can also provide a platform for understanding the motivations behind

vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The casual nature of social media has altered the

doctor-patient interaction and profoundly changed the way information is

disseminated. Empowering experts and health officials to participate in

discussions on social media about vaccination is critical to bridging the

vaccination information gap. The public's reliance on social media for vital

information has and will continue to increase, and its influence on personal

decision-making regarding health. The immediacy and informal nature of social

media gives thought to leaders, a marked advantage in communicating with and

 12

influencing the public. In an era when more than 2.3 billion people in 232

countries are active on social media, the public health community can correct

misinformation by establishing its own social media communities and leveraging

established channels to provide facts about the safety and value of vaccines

(Social Medicine: The Effect of Social Media on the Anti-Vaccine Movement,

2018).

The media create a negative or positive vaccine sentiment and can

provide a platform for lobbies and key opinion leaders to influence others; social

media allows users to freely voice opinions and experiences and it can facilitate

the organization of social networks for or against vaccines (The SAGE Vaccine

Hesitancy Working Group, 2013).

Culture is the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual

achievement regarded collectively or in short, our customs. This cultural variation

in our time or even in the past, is in risk perception thus necessitates different

approaches to risk communication depending on the cultural context. This tends

to be the attitude of most scientists toward risk assessment, when in reality there

are an abundance of data demonstrating that people do not assess risk in a

straightforward, objective manner. Rather, assessment and experience of risk

are based on an intricate mix of objective assessment and emotional response.

A group of researchers measured the loss in public trust through their ongoing

Global Vaccine Confidence Index. In 2015, 93 percent of Philippine respondents

strongly agreed that vaccines were important. This year, that figure has fallen to

just 32 percent, while only 1 in 5 people now believes vaccines are safe.
 13

According to Heidi Larson (2018), an anthropologist and Director of the Vaccine

Confidence Project, the dramatic drop in confidence is a real concern about risks

to other diseases such as measles, in the national setting.

The controversy surrounding Dengvaxia has set the public perception on

vaccines at an all-time low. The vaccination rate for life-threatening diseases

such as measles, polio, tetanus and diphtheria has plummeted to 60% this

February 2018. This figure is a drastic February 2017’s 85-90% vaccination rate.

According to Health Undersecretary Enrique Domingo, children before would

come to the health centers for their scheduled vaccines unlike now wherein

parents are first needed to be convinced. DOH’s current state of infamy brought

by the controversy has cast a wide shadow of doubt among the Filipino people.

As a result, a lot of parents became hesitant to entrust their children’s well-being

to a health agency that seemingly takes the youth’s health for granted. This

recent uproar and rejection of vital vaccines could reverse our significant strides

towards a safer and healthier environment for our children

Approximately a year after the Dengvaxia controversy, where its

manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur released an advisory warning that its vaccine could

cause a person to later develop severe dengue if he or she had not been

infected by the virus prior to immunization caused a media frenzy. The

Department of Health (DOH) said people are still scared of the government's free

vaccines and the primary targets are the Filipino children. Thus, parents are still

unwilling to have their children immunized in their various vaccination programs.

 14

Political ideology is another important factor towards vaccine hesitation. In

a study by Bert Baumgaertner (2018) on “The Influence of Political Ideology and

Trust on Willingness to Vaccinate”, he suggested that because vaccinations have

not yet been adopted by a major political party or ideological camp, there is no

well-developed partisan or ideological opinion about its importance. However,

there has been a suspected ideological opinion about vaccines in the United

States as a consequence of the relationship between political values and risk

(acquirable from vaccine). Because of this, conservatives will be less likely to

express pro-vaccination attitudes, despite the infamous vaccine skepticism that

some liberals, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have adopted. Anti-vaccination

opinions have also been publicly discussed among conservative leaders such as

the Republican candidates during the 2016 presidential race who expressed a

degree of skepticism concerning vaccination. In addition, Donald Trump has

used Twitter to perpetuate a long disproved linkage between autism and

vaccines. This could have motivated an ideological gap in public attitudes about

vaccination.

Socioeconomic factors affect the potency of parental-decision towards

vaccination such as income status and vaccine accessibility. A research

conducted by Zuwen Qiu-Shultz (2013) on “Factors Associated with Parental

Decision Making and Childhood Vaccination” discovered that these factors are

key contributors for the majority of children who are not up-to-date for a complete

set of vaccine. Despite identifying associations between poverty and vaccination

status in several studies, the result has not been conclusive. However, the
 15

National Inpatient Sample (NIS) survey in 2011 showed that children living below

poverty were behind children living at or above poverty in receiving updated

vaccines and vaccines that require higher dosage to complete the series (CDC,

2012). Other studies have found that having a large number of children in the

household (Trauth, et. al., 2002) and having 2 or more healthcare providers

(Schaffer, et. al., 2001) were significantly and independently associated with

inadequate immunization status of children.

Personal factors include past experiences with vaccination services that

can influence future decision-making towards vaccination which are negative

encounters. For example, parents attending a naturopathic clinic in Ontario have

shown that feeling pressured by physicians to vaccinate one’s child was one of

the main determinants of a child’s non-vaccination or incomplete vaccine status

(Busse J.W., Walji R., Wilson K., 2011). Fear of needles and pain felt after

vaccination are also personal barrier to vaccination. A study showed that about

two-thirds of children and one-quarter of parents reported fear of needles

(Taddio, et al., 2012) and a child’s pain from vaccine shots was listed one of the

most common concerns of the parents (Kennedy A., Basket M., Sheedy K.,

2011).

Parents’ perceptions on the importance of vaccination in maintaining their

child’s health status also contribute to vaccine hesitation. Two studies showing

that parents refuse or hesitate vaccination lead to a theory in which the immune

system is an individual characteristic needing individualized healthcare and that

there is a possible risk of immune overload due to individual “weakness” of a

 16

child (Poltorak M. et al., 2005 & Cassell J.A. et al., 2006), a point of view wherein

vaccines are seen as something that would disturb rather than boost the immune

system.

The Fully-Immunized Child (FIC) 2017 data shows there is a decline in the

immunization coverage consecutively for the last three years (74% in 2014; 71%

in 2015; partial 69% in 2016), which is below the 95% coverage target. This also

means that the public is vulnerable to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable

diseases. Strategies under the Philippine Health Agenda (ACHIEVE) are likely to

address the identified challenges on this matter wherein the Department of

Health (DOH) joined the observation of the annual World Immunization Week by

launching an event or campaign where local chief executives are primed to

improve the demand for routine immunization. This campaign includes a new TV

and Radio public service announcement (PSA) and audio visual production

(AVP) which are shown in health centers (Department of Health, 2017).

Save the Children Philippines - the world's leading independent children's

organization - has been implementing maternal and child health and nutrition

programs among poor families in some cities like Navotas, Malabon and

Caloocan, providing easier access to immunization, prenatal check-ups and

training of community health workers. The organization also implemented the

First 1,000 Days Law, a measure that seeks to provide health and nutrition

services to children during their early days of development to improve their health

(ABS-CBN News, 2019).

 17

The availability of vaccines is contributing to the low immunization

coverage nationwide in the recent years, according to the Department of Health,

only 6 out of 10 children were getting their scheduled vaccinations. The rate of

infants who received one dose of Bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG), three doses

each of Oral Polio Vaccine, DPT (Diphtheria, pertussis or whooping cough and

tetanus), and Hepatitis B vaccines, and one dose of measles vaccine before

reaching one year of age is only 67.47%.

This should not be a concern if only the Republic Act 10152 or “The

Mandatory Infants and Children Health Immunization Act of 2011” – which says

that the mandatory basic immunization for vaccine-preventable diseases shall be

given for free at any government hospital or health center to infant and children

up to five years of age - has been strongly implemented throughout the country

(Philstar, 2019).

Worldwide, the recommended vaccine set in the global immunization

coverage of the World Health Organization includes Haemophilus influenza type

b (Hib), Hepatitis B, Human Papillomavirus (HPV), MMR (Mumps, Measles,

Rubella), Meningitis A, Pneumococcal diseases, Polio, Rotaviruses, Tetanus and

Yellow Fever vaccines (WHO, 2018). In the Philippines, the routine immunization

includes Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis (Tdap), MMR, Polio and Influenza

(International Association for Medical Assistance to Travellers, 2018).

 18

Related Studies

In a study “Parental Decision-Making on Childhood Vaccination” by Kaja

Damnjanovic and his co-researchers, there is a growing number of parents

delaying or deciding not to vaccinate their children across Europe and Asia. This

increases the risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases and disrupting

herd immunity, and also impairs the trust in the capacities of health care systems

to protect people. They identified themes like trust toward authorities, perceived

consensus and norms, freedom of choice, choice overload, and values,

perception of danger and access to information. These themes can be

categorized under factors stated in the Vaccine Hesitancy Theory.

In Britain, three groups comprised of parents who had accepted MMR and

three groups of parents who had refused MMR were interviewed in focus group

discussion. The first group had accepted MMR unwillingly. As to the group of

parents who refused MMR, it resulted to underlying reasons such as parents felt

that the decision-making was difficult and stressful, experienced unwelcome

pressure from health professionals, parents who were not convinced by the

Department of Health that MMR is the safest and best option for their children.

These were categorized into (a) beliefs about the risks and benefits of MMR, (b)

information from the media about the safety of MMR, (c) confidence and trust in

the advice of health professionals and attitudes towards compliance with this

advice, and (d) views on the importance of individual choice within government

policy on immunization. Conclusively, parents wanted up-to-date information

 19

about the risks and benefits of MMR to be available prior to immunization

appointment for them to be given time to decide (Evans M. et al., 2001).

Dengue fever - a systemic viral illness that is transmitted through

mosquitoes - is another example of vaccine-preventable disease. Philippines has

a high prevalence rate of dengue cases in the recent years. A qualitative study

was conducted using the determinants of vaccine hesitancy as a guide wherein

parents of eligible children to the dengue vaccination who consented and those

who refused, were purposely selected as participants. The researchers were able

to identify three key themes: (1) Parental experience in dealing with vaccination

and dengue. Parents’ understanding of the dengue vaccine was limited because

it was new, and they believed the dengue vaccine was like other government

vaccines. Parents with pleasant experience with government vaccinations have

accepted the vaccine. Some parents refused the vaccination because their

children had an adverse reaction or are afraid of the injection. Likewise, parents

who refused the vaccination demanded more information on vaccine safety and

benefits especially if they have previous reactions from other vaccines. Those

who refuse tend to know more about vaccines and refuse the dengue vaccine

only among other vaccines. They believe the vaccine has not been proven

effective because it was new. Moreover, the vaccine was provided free by

government and was seen to improve access. Parents’ experience on hospital

and private vaccinations is expensive. (2) Parental trust on the public health

institutions. Parents express that they have limited knowledge on what the

dengue vaccine is and what it does, but they trust the vaccinators, the
 20

vaccination program and the health institutions that led them to accepting the

vaccine. Parents have been influenced by the recommendations of health

workers in the dengue vaccinations. During the vaccine controversy, the trust in

public health institutions has been eroded especially that the vaccination program

was linked with corruption practices by health leaders. Trust in information being

received from these institutions has been low. Parents find it difficult to find

trustworthy information sources. Health workers, especially local health workers

and medical doctors, are the most cited trustworthy information sources but the

lack of avenues and confidence in discussing what happened to the vaccination

has led to loss of trust in the dengue vaccination but also to other school

vaccinations and public health programs. (3) Communication received by

parents. The initial implementation of the vaccination happened suddenly, and

some parents wanted to participate but unable to. This suddenness in

implementation is seen to be contributory to the general lack of knowledge on

vaccine specific details such as number of doses, intervals, risks and vaccination

site. Parents preferred community-based interventions in communication with

their local health workers in multiple forms even if vaccination sites are in

schools. They needed more information on dengue vaccine benefits, risks and

safety. With the vaccine controversy, the communication received was perceived

to be inadequate. Most of the parents received information from the news and

not from their local health workers. Dengue vaccine coherence and perceived

effectiveness were low. Some parents associate having the dengue vaccine as a

risk to severe dengue regardless of previous history. Severe dengue is equated

 21

to death. Some parents think the dengue vaccine is a poison and they need an

antidote. Others think that the vaccine increases the risks of their children to

other severe diseases. Information need by parents centered on child safety.

Community-based communication strategies are preferred to allow parents to

ask questions with the local medical doctors in their communities are expected to

conduct the information dissemination.

Justification of the Study

This study is important because there are still intermittent death cases of

preventable diseases in the city throughout the years and a well-founded

explanation as to why some children who are not vaccinated is yet clear and

definite.
 22

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researchers discuss the research design, locale,

subjects, the instruments for data collection, and validation of the questionnaire

and administration of the data analysis.

Research Design

The researchers chose a mixed methodology specifically Sequential

Exploratory Research (Qualitative-quantitative method) with emphasis on

Quantitative Paradigm. Qualitative study was used to gain an understanding of

underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations. It provided insights into the

problem or helped to develop ideas or hypotheses for potential quantitative

research. In this study, qualitative method was used to determine the emerging

themes on parental decisions towards vaccination. Quantitative study was used

to quantify attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and other defined variables – and

generalize results from a larger sample population by way of generating

numerical data or data that can be transformed into usable statistics

(SnapSurvey, 2011). The themes were translated into a self-made questionnaire

where the factors determined were measured and analyzed quantitatively.

Sequential exploratory research is two phase design. The qualitative data was

collected first, followed by collection and analysis of quantitative data. The

purpose of this design was to develop an instrument (such as a survey), to

develop a classification for testing, or to identify variables (Center for Innovation

 23

in Research and Teaching, n.d.). This method was followed to explore the

underlying dimensions on parental decision on vaccination.

Research Locale

The researchers chose Barangay 23-C, Poblacion District, Davao City as

the site for conducting the study. This was chosen due to the latest report that

this area was the first of the measles outbreak in the city. It has a population of

16,489 as of 2015 Census with 3,419 households as of 2010 Census. It has 1

health center with 4 health workers and 3 nutrition scholars (CPDO, 2016).

Figure 2. Geographic location of Barangay 23-C in Davao City.

The area is situated near Uyanguren and beside Ramon Magsaysay Park

extending towards the corner of the city.

 24

Research Subjects

The researchers followed a certain criterion that allow the researchers to

depict our subjects in the research.

Qualitative Study

At least 5 parents aged 18 years and above with child or children aged 5

years and below will be the subjected to the qualitative study. However, the

number of subjects will vary on the saturation level that will be reached. The

qualitative study is fully saturated once repetition of data from the subjects will be

encountered.

Quantitative Study

30 and another 150 parents aged 18 years and above with child or

children aged 5 years and below will be subjected in the first and second phase

of the quantitative study respectively.

Data Sources

Upon the approval of the Ethics Committee, the researchers performed

Key Informant Interview with a guide questionnaire. This questionnaire was

validated by 3 experts and contained opening, main, probing, and closing

questions to set the flow of the interview. The key informants of this interview

were parents of children who are not vaccinated.

 25

Sampling Procedure

Purposive sampling was used in choosing the participants in this study.

Purposive sampling was utilized since the parents were selected on the

determined criteria. Using Slovin’s formula at 95% confidence interval, 200

participants in total will be selected. One hundred twenty-six parents who had

their child not vaccinated were enrolled in the study.

Research Procedure

Qualitative Study

Qualitative research was done first using Key Informant Interview. Key

Informant Interviews involved interviewing people who have particularly informed

perspectives on an aspect of the program being evaluated (Betterevaluation

Org., 2014). The researchers conducted the interview with the use of guide

questions validated by 3 experts. During the interview, a research member did

audio recording, another did written recording and the rest of the members were

the alternating interviewers. The In-depth Interview (IDI) approximately lasted for

a minimum of 5 minutes and a maximum of 15 minutes and 15 to 30 minutes

during the Focused Group Discussion (FGD). Additionally, there were 10

participants for the IDI and 7 for the FGD. The interview was conducted at

Barangay 23-C, Poblacion District, specifically at the house of the participant for

their convenience. On the other hand, the FGD was conducted at the same

barangay but different focal area such as basketball court or any open area

wherein the participants found the most convenient. To set the rapport of the
 26

interview, the participants were asked in a transitional manner from introductory

questions such as asking their current well-being to set a friendly impression

followed by the main questions along with probing questions to further enhance

the information taken from the interview and also to balance the setting of the

interview by not being too direct with the main questions. Lastly, the transition of

the interview ended with closing questions such as their views and opinions

about the current issue in relation to the study.

Quantitative Study

Data gathered from the interview will be used to create self-made

questionnaire. A self-made questionnaire is a structured form that consists of

closed-ended and open-ended questions (Health Systems Assessments and

Planning Manual, n.d.). The questionnaire will be validated by 3 experts from the

Department of Health (DOH). The researchers will then perform Pilot Testing

wherein 30 random parents will be given questionnaires for them to input. Data

will be gathered and subjected to reliability testing by a statistician. The

questionnaire will be revised and edited based on the result of the reliability

testing. Formal Surveying will be conducted afterwards wherein the revised

questionnaire will be given to 150 respondents in a house-to-house manner.

 27

Figure 3. Research Procedure Workflow

Data Analysis

a. Qualitative Study

Data gathered will be scaled using Thematic analysis. Thematic analysis

is used in qualitative research and focuses on examining themes within

data. This method emphasizes organization and rich description of the data set.

It goes beyond simply counting phrases or words in a text and moves on to

identifying implicit and explicit ideas within the data. Coding is the primary
 28

process for developing themes within the raw data by recognizing important

moments in the data and encoding it prior to interpretation. The interpretation of

these codes can include comparing theme frequencies, identifying theme co-

occurrence, and graphically displaying relationships between different themes

(Wikipedia).

b. Quantitative Study

Data gathered from the Pilot Testing will be analyzed using Cronbach’s

Alpha. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure used to assess the reliability, or internal

consistency, of a set of scale or test items. In other words, the reliability of any

given measurement refers to the extent to which it is a consistent measure of a

concept, and Cronbach’s alpha is one way of measuring the strength of that

consistency (University of Virginia Library, 2015).

Data gathered from the Formal Surveying will be analyzed using

Exploratory Factor Analysis. Exploratory factor analysis is a statistical technique

that is used to reduce data to a smaller set of summary variables and to explore

the underlying theoretical structure of the phenomena. It is used to identify the

structure of the relationship between the variable and the respondent (Statistics

Solutions, n.d.). We extracted the measured factors and themes, thereby

allowing a model to be constructed or an improvement of the theories based on

this study. We used the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) method that will be an

indicator in the proportion of variance in the variables that might be caused by

underlying factors.
 29

Ethical Consideration

The study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Boards - Ethics

Committee and will only proceed to the actual conduction upon its approval.

Social Value

The researchers were committed to the value of the participants as

members of the community and the importance of their opinions in addressing

the problem being analyzed by this study.

Informed Consent

An Informed Consent Form were given to the participants prior to the

conduction of the study. This form served as the legal term to their voluntary

participation and we only conducted the interview and surveyed upon their

approval by signing the form. The content of this form also included the

assurance of protecting their identities through our compliance to the Data

Privacy Act of 2012. Also, the participants were given the option to withdraw from

the study at any time without questions asked.

Vulnerability Issues

The participants were not vulnerable in the study. However, possible risks

were still anticipated.

Risks-benefit ratio

Risks of the participants included inconvenience and disturbances during

the interview and survey, psychological risk such as the privacy invasiveness that

the participants might possibly feel when questioned, and legal security of their

personal identities that they thought were not provided. We ensured that these
 30

risks were as minimal as possible and that the magnitude of the probable harm or

discomfort anticipated in the process of the study was not any greater of the

routinely encountered harm by providing planned actions to counter these.

To avoid physical disturbances and inconvenience, we first asked the

participants politely if he or she was willing to listen to us or if he or she was free

and had time to spare in order for us to reach our true objective. To avoid the

psychological and legal risk that we have anticipated, we asked consent from the

participants by first providing them the Informed Consent which also contained

the compliance of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 to ensure the security and

confidentiality of their personal identities.

For the benefit of the participants, results from this study were given to

them firsthand for them to have a better idea of the positive impact of their

participation in the future.

Privacy and Confidentiality of Information

The researchers were to provide full compliance of the Data Privacy Act of

2012, which states to protect the fundamental rights of human privacy to the

information given to promote the growth of our study. In addition, their personal

information and identity will be kept private and confidential and making it

untraceable to the public.

Justice

Personal information and opinions of the participants were given justice by

putting these to proper and legal use in the study and that the data or results

generated will be credited to them.

 31

Transparency

The participants’ understanding of their role to be open, honest, and true

in the process of the study were assured and in return, the results were

disseminated to them first or giving them access to the findings or results of the

study in coordination with the barangay office.

Qualification of the Researchers

We, the researchers, were qualified to conduct the study as we had the

abilities needed and motivation to aim for the betterment or improvement of the

community. Additionally, our study was feasible enough for us to conduct as we

are also members of the community we delved in and with the full support of our

institution; we were able to reach our goal. We ensured that our target

participants were appropriate for the study as they were fit to the inclusion criteria

required to establish validity.

Adequacy of Facilities and Community Involvement

The participants and the entirety of this study were involved as

contributors to the growth of the study and that if given the opportunity that the

study will be pursued or improved by the future researchers and educators,

possibly reaching the government, specifically the Department of Health (DOH)

or private administrators, action will be provided accordingly to address the

problem in the community along with the help of the institution by supporting the

needs of the study.

 32

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the overall data results, analysis and interpretation

of data from the experiments performed. For easy comprehension of the results,

the data are presented in tabular forms. Interpretation of results was done after

statistical evaluation.

Table 1. Participants in the Qualitative Study

Participant Code Status Program Participation
FGDP1 Married Married FGD
FGDP2 Married Married FGD
FGDP3 Married Married FGD
FGDP4 Married Married FGD
FGDP5 Married Married FGD

Participant Code Status Program Participation

KII1 Married Married KII
KII2 Married Married KII
KII3 Married Married KII
KII4 Married Married KII
KII5 Married Married KII
KII6 Married Married KII
KII7 Married Married KII
KII8 Married Married KII
KII9 Married Married KII

As shown in the table above, information such as the civil status and the

corresponding qualitative procedure (Key Informant Interview or Focused Group

Discussion) in which they participated were assigned to the corresponding

participant accordingly.
 33

Table 2. Thematic Analysis on the Reason for Parental Decision Towards

Vaccination
Codes Discussed Themes identified
Far  Inconvenient for them  Transportation
 Takes a lot of time to  Can’t properly
travel to and from the understand the
area geography of their
 The place is somehow place
rotary
Payment/Fee  They have insufficient  Financial problems
budget for vaccine
and would rather
spend it on other
needs
 They believed that
vaccines are very
expensive
Tiresome  “kinakain ng  Laziness
katamaran”  They chose not to
 They find it tiresome step out of their own
to go and get will
vaccination
Being brought to  Work as a barrier  Relocation
another place  Hassle  Often forgotten
 Went somewhere on because of their work
the day of scheduled  Accommodation
vaccination
Afraid of needle  Past experiences  Fear
puncture  Has been a family
tradition
 Trypanophobia
Do not know where  Unaware/clueless of  Transportation
the location
 New/recent relocation
to the barangay
Do not know if still  No source of  Lack of knowledge
allowed to continue information  Instructions are
 Not oriented properly vaguely introduced to
the residents

Forgotten  Postponed until  Time management

eventually forgotten  Busy
 Thought that primary  Laziness
vaccine shot/s taken
is/are already enough
 Heard the public
notice but somehow
forgot it because of
their busy schedules
 34

Dengvaxia  Believed to be the  Influenced by

start/cause of “chismis”
acquiring Dengue  Influenced by Media
 Believed that
Dengvaxia will expose
their child towards
vectors
Tinouhan  They tend to believe  Norms
their own ways
Daghan ginabuhat  Hectic schedules  Time management
 Vaccinating their child
becomes the least of
their priority
Sige kalinturahon  Often rejected  Unexpected
because of untimely occurrences
bad health condition
their child on the day
of vaccination

This table presents the themes classified from the codes taken out from

the qualitative data.

Transportation. The participants either live far from the nearest local

health center or re-located in the area wherein both give emphasis on the

traveling distance from their residence to the health center saying:

“…layo kaayo sa amoa ang center. Maskin naa pa nay schedule.” –

FGDP3

“Kuan, nabalhin naman gud mi diri sa laing lugar. Mao nang wala pud mi
kabalo kung asa diria. O kung pwede ba ipadayon pa.” – FGDP1

Financial Problem. This theme is in correlation to another theme, Lack of

Knowledge, which implies that some participants were not aware of the free

vaccination thereby assuming that they cannot access vaccines for their child

due to lack of financial support. The discussion for both themes are supported by

the quote:
 35

“Ang kamagulangan pud nako bantog wala napabakunahan kay tungod sa

wala pud mi kwarta kadto nga panahona. Mao tong nagdako nalang siya na
walay bakuna.” – KII1

Laziness and Time Management as personal barriers. Some of the

participants reasoned that they are often busy, thus, not being able to spend time

and have their child/children immunized at the local health center. And some said

that they just feel lazy. These discussions are supported by the quotes:

“…usahay hasulan ko padulong didto tapos balik nasad. Kay kung bakuna
lang ang tuyo kay bakuna rapud akong adtoon dayon balik na sa balay namo.” –
KII1

“Ay nalimtan oy. Kapoy man gud adto sa center.” – FGDP3

Media. The most frequently mentioned in the qualitative data revolves

around the influence of the news/issues regarding vaccination. The participants

were strongly vocal about how the media greatly affected their decision-making

towards acquiring vaccine for their children.

“nahadlok mi atong mga balita sa manila na daghan

nangamatay..nasugdan siya ug bakuna pero sukad nabalitaan to nako, wala na
nako siya gipapadayon.” – KII10

“…mahadlok man gud mi uy kay katong naissue sauna na dengvaxia gud.

Basi mahitabo to siya sakong anak. Unya isa ra baya akong anak. Simbako
tawon. Ug usa pud dili musugot akong bana...dili pud siya musugot kay tungod
atong balita gud na daghan kaayo nangamatay ana. Lisod kaayo na anak,
matingala nalang ko sa unsay musunoday. So mao to, giundang nalang namo
mag asawa.” – KII11

“Sukad atong nabalitaan na dengvaxia. Tung nangamatay lage kay

tungod pagka inject pa lang kay pagka ugma nagapakita na ug sintomas na dili
nato or namo maagapan dayon. Naa gani papel ginapadala sa amoa kung okay
ba daw na bakunahan among anak. Unya ako, tung nabalitaan nako to siya, sa
akong sarili kay basi mahitabo tung nahitabo sa mga bata didto sa manila sa
akong anak. Kana ganing ing ana akong panghuna huna. Kay mas nindot ng
didto ko sa akong tinuohan bahin sa bakuna kesa naman sa kung unsay gusto
sa tanan. Simbako tawon.” – KII14
 36

Norm. The smallest portion of the qualitative data gave an emphasis on

the culture or norm as barrier towards vaccination and supported by the quote:

“wala kay tanan man gud mi dili nagapabakunana…. kay kuan lang ang
inahan man gud namo kay kuan bisag wala daw sakit ang bata kay
magkasakit… mutuo mi sa mga bakuna kanang mga anti-kuan pero ang kuan
namo dili namo pabakunahan among mga anak kay katong bata pa pud mi wala
sad” – KII6

Fear. Several participants implied that they fear the needle which is a tool

in the process of vaccination. This was said to be a contributor to their decision-

making on vaccination.

“Mahadlok man gud ko magpa injection gani kay tungod anang pag inject
pa lang sa bata kay kalinturahon dayon unya maalarma pud ko ba kay basi
nagkinaunsa na akong anak. Unya ra bakoy kalibutan pa kaayo sa kung unsa
nang bakuna jud. Talawan man gud jud ko ug dagum ba. So murag ako ang
masakitan sa akong anak.” – KII16

“kanang mahadlok man gud ko ug dagum. Kuan man gud, tung dati ba.
Hasta akong mama mahadlok ug akong papa pud. Murag sa among pamilya gud
siya nga murag nitatak sa among utok. Nga grabe kasakit matusukan.” – KII4

Unforeseen circumstances or occurrences. Unexpected events such as

flu-like symptoms (e.g. cold, cough) during the time or schedule of vaccination

also showed a contribution to the delay and eventually skipping of acquiring

vaccine according to a participant who said:

“Nagka ubo ug sipon man gud to akong anak. Tapos sukad ato wala na
nako siya nasundan ug bakuna.” – KII3
 37

Table 3. Domains and quotations from the qualitative analysis and its
corresponding Survey Item

DOMAINS AND QUOTATIONS FROM CORRESPONDING SURVEY ITEM

THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
Transportation as barrier from
acquiring vaccination. The
participants are not familiar of the local
health centers or live far from the
nearest local health center in their
area.
I live far from the nearest health center.
“…layo kaayo sa amoa ang center. (survey item 1)
Maskin naa pa nay schedule.” –
FGDP3
“layo siya sa amo” – KII2
“natao man gud ni sila sa Cagayan
unya layo saamo ang kuan ba” – KII8
“Kuan, nabalhin naman gud mi diri sa
laing lugar. Mao nang wala pud mi
kabalo kung asa diria. O kung pwede
ba ipadayon pa.” – FGDP1 I recently relocated and I do not know
the location of the nearest health
“Kuan, kay ang nahitabo man gud ato center. (survey item 3)
kay sa balay man gud ko nanganak ato
sa akong kamanghuran. Human layo
man gud ang center sa amoa.” – KII1

Financial problems. The participants

have no budget set for vaccination.

“Ang kamagulangan pud nako bantog I have no budget for vaccines. (survey
wala napabakunahan kay tungod sa item 2)
wala pud mi kwarta kadto nga
panahona. Mao tong nagdako nalang
siya na walay bakuna.” – KII1
Personal barriers. The participants
are either lazy to go to the health
center or forgot to have their children
immunized.

“…usahay hasulan ko padulong didto I prioritize other matters more than

tapos balik nasad. Kay kung bakuna vaccine. (survey item 4)
lang ang tuyo kay bakuna rapud akong
adtoon dayon balik na sa balay namo.”
– KII1
 38

“Ay nalimtan oy. Kapoy man gud adto I find it tiresome to spend some time to
sa center.” – FGDP3 take part in vaccination. (survey item
11)
Media. The participants are influenced
by what they hear from the news.

“Nagpasa jud ko ug papel na nag no ko

kay ang reason nako kay mahadlok ko,
kay basig magsugod baya ang inject
sa Maynila kay sa eskwelahan baya to
nagsugod tung Dengvaxia.” – KII9 I am not easily influenced by the news I
“Mahadlok siya (husband) makit-an see or hear from the media about
niya mga tv ba na kanang basig vaccination (e.g. social platforms, TV,
mamatay daw.” – KII7 radio, etc.). (survey item 7)

“kay kuan man gud to, nakakita ko sa

balita ba na grabe daghan kaayo
nagsakit na mga bata gud tapos basi
maabot pud sa akong anak. Kay murag
nagahatag sila ug dengue sa bata.” –
FGDP5

“Sukad atong nabalitaan na dengvaxia.

Tung nangamatay lage kay tungod
pagka inject pa lang kay pagka ugma
nagapakita na ug sintomas na dili nato
or namo maagapan dayon. Naa gani
papel ginapadala sa amoa kung okay
ba daw na bakunahan among anak.
Unya ako, tung nabalitaan nako to I am not updated of the latest news or
siya, sa akong sarili kay basi mahitabo issues regarding vaccine/vaccination.
tung nahitabo sa mga bata didto sa (survey item 8)
manila sa akong anak. Kana ganing
ing ana akong panghuna huna. Kay
mas nindot ng didto ko sa akong
tinuohan bahin sa bakuna kesa naman
sa kung unsay gusto sa tanan.
Simbako tawon.” – KII14

“Ay akong bana dili musugot oy. Kay

katong time nga naay giinject sa bata
daw dati sa ila na nagsakit daw kay My family/partner prohibits vaccination.
tungod sa bakuna na pag inject kay (survey item 15)
kalinturahon human kay magsakit.
Unya sukad ato dili na siya musugot.” –
KII16
 39

“nahadlok mi atong mga balita sa

manila na daghan
nangamatay..nasugdan siya ug bakuna
pero sukad nabalitaan to nako, wala na
nako siya gipapadayon.” – KII10

“…mahadlok man gud mi uy kay

katong naissue sauna na dengvaxia I discontinued vaccination due to the
gud. Basi mahitabo to siya sakong news/issue regarding it. (survey item
anak. Unya isa ra baya akong anak. 20)
Simbako tawon. Ug usa pud dili
musugot akong bana...dili pud siya
musugot kay tungod atong balita gud
na daghan kaayo nangamatay ana.
Lisod kaayo na anak, matingala nalang
ko sa unsay musunoday. So mao to,
giundang nalang namo mag asawa.” –
KII11

“…nakakita man gud mi sa balita na

atong sa Manila. Na daghan
nangamatay tungod atong vaccine.
Mao na karon na magduha duha mi
pabakuna sa among anak kay basi
mahitabo to sa among anak.” – KII12
I am always skeptical about getting
“alanganin ba, kay dili man sa kuan vaccination. (survey item 16)
kaayo pero ang dagum man kay
ipatindog man gud siya. Ug katong
dengvaxia,tung sa tv na daghan daw
nadaot. Basi mahitabo diri sa among
mga anak. Ang kapakanan samong
anak ang maargabyado pud.” – KII13

Fear as a barrier. The participants are

afraid of the immunization process
(e.g. fear of needle).

“kanang mahadlok man gud ko ug

dagum. Kuan man gud, tung dati ba.
Hasta akong mama mahadlok ug
akong papa pud. Murag sa among I have a fear of needle and/or blood
pamilya gud siya nga murag nitatak sa due to the things I have witnessed from
among utok. Nga grabe kasakit my family/other people. (survey item 9)
matusukan.” – KII4
 40

“Mahadlok oy. Labaw na akong mga

anak. Mutyabaw man gani makakita
lang ug dagom” – FGDP3

“Mahadlok man gud ko magpa injection

gani kay tungod anang pag inject pa
lang sa bata kay kalinturahon dayon I am afraid of the pain to be inflicted to
unya maalarma pud ko ba kay basi my child during or after vaccination.
nagkinaunsa na akong anak. Unya ra (survey item 10)
bakoy kalibutan pa kaayo sa kung
unsa nang bakuna jd. Talawan man It is normal that vaccination can cause
gud jud ko ug dagum ba. So murag fever. (survey item 14)
ako ang masakitan sa akong anak.” –
KII16

“dili lang mi muuyon sa injection na

inyong ginahtag sa among bata. Ako
naa man koy paninindigan sa akong I have my own beliefs about
tinuohan. Unya dili man pd sila vaccination. (survey item 13)
kapugos sa amoa.” – KII14

Unforeseen circumstances. The

participants missed their scheduled
vaccination due to unforeseen
circumstances.

“Nagka ubo ug sipon man gud to

akong anak. Tapos sukad ato wala na
nako siya nasundan ug bakuna.” – KII3

Culture/Norm. The participants have

their own belief about immunity. They
practice it throughout their family line.
I come from a family who does not take
“wala kay tanan man gud mi dili part in immunization/vaccination.
nagapabakunana…. kay kuan lang ang (survey item 12)
inahan man gud namo kay kuan bisag
wala daw sakit ang bata kay I do not believe in the vaccine because
magkasakit… mutuo mi sa mga of its harmful effects. (survey item 6)
bakuna kanang mga anti-kuan pero
ang kuan namo dili namo My knowledge about
pabakunahan among mga anak kay vaccine/vaccination is insufficient.
katong bata pa pud mi wala sad” – KII6 (survey item 5)
 41

This table presents the domains and quotations taken from the Key

Informant Interview and Focused Group Discussion in the Qualitative phase with

the corresponding survey items made out of the qualitative data. These items

were the content of the Survey Questionnaire used in the conduction of the

Formal Survey.
 42

Table 4. Developed Questionnaire

QUESTIONS (MGA PANGUTANA) 4 3 2 1

I live far from the nearest health center.
(Layo akong puy-anan gikan sa pinakaduol na
health center.)
I have no budget for vaccines.
(Wala koy badyet para pambakuna)
I recently relocated so I do not know the location of
the health center.
(Bago lang ko nibalhin ug puluy-anan maong wala
ko kasayod asa ang health center.)
I prioritize other matters more than vaccine.
(Mas ginapalabi nako ang ubang butang kesa
bakuna.)
My knowledge about vaccine/vaccination is
insufficient.
(Kulang ang akong nahibal-an/pagsabot bahin sa
bakuna.)
I do not believe in the vaccine because of its
harmful effects.
(Dili ko mutuo sa mga maayong dulot sa bakuna.)
I am not easily influenced by the news I see or hear
from the media about vaccination (e.g. social
platforms, TV, radio, etc.).
(Dili ko dali ma impluwensyahan sa mga balita na
makita o madunggan nako bahin sa pagpabakuna.)
I am not updated of the latest news or issues
regarding vaccine/vaccination.
(Wala koy ubod bahin sa mga bag-ong balita bahin
sa bakuna/pagpabakuna.)
I have a fear of needle and/or blood due to the
things I have witnessed from my family/other
people.
(Mahadlok ko sa dagum/dugo tungod sa mga
butang na akong nasaksihan gikan sa akong
pamilya o ubang tao.)
I am afraid of the pain being inflicted to my
child/children inflicted during or after vaccination.
(Mahadlok ko sa sakit nga madulot sa akong
anak/mga anak samtang ug human sa
pagpabakuna.)
I find it tiresome to spend some time to take part in
vaccination.
(Kapoyan ko maghatag ug oras para sa
pagpabakuna.)
 43

I come from a family who does not take part in

immunization/vaccination.
(Gikan ko sa pamilya na dili nagapabakuna.)
I have my own beliefs about vaccination.
(Naa ko’y sariling pagtuo bahin sa bakuna.)
It is not normal that vaccination can cause fever.
(Dili normal ang kalintura na dulot sa bakuna.)
My family/partner prohibits vaccination.
(Wala ko ginatugtan sa akong asawa/bana o
pamilya bahin sa bakuna.)
I am always skeptical about getting vaccination.
(Permi ko nagaduha-duha bahin sa pagpabakuna.)
I discontinued vaccination due to the news/issue
regarding it.
(Wala ko nagpadayon sa pagpabakuna tungod sa
mga balita/isyu bahin ato.)

4 - Strongly agree (Kusog akong pag-uyon)

3 – Agree (Mu-uyon ko)
2 – Disagree (Dili ko mu-uyon)
1 - Strongly disagree (Kusog akong di pag-uyon)

The table above presents the survey items derived from the Domains and

Quotations of the qualitative data. These items were assigned with a scale of 1 to

4 where 1 is the strong disagreement and 4 is the strong agreement for the

respondents to answer based on the applicability.

Table 5. Mean Scores per Item

Items Mean SD Interpretation
1. I live far from the nearest health center 1.65 .77 Moderate
2. I have no budget for vaccines 1.45 .72 Moderate
3. I recently relocated so I do not know the
1.47 .86
location of the health center Moderate
4. I prioritize other matters more than
2.88 .90
vaccine High
5. My knowledge about vaccine/vaccination
2.30 .83
is insufficient High
6. I do not believer in the vaccine because
2.41 .72
of its harmful effects High
7. I am not easily influenced by the news I 2.67 .73 High
 44

see or hear from the media about

vaccination
8. I am not updated of the latest news or
2.33 .80
issues regarding vaccine/vaccination High
9. I have a fear of needle and/or blood due
to the things I have witnessed from my 2.59 1.08
family/other people High
10. I am afraid of the pain being inflicted
2.83 1.07
during or after vaccination High
11. I find it tiresome to spend some time to
2.63 .88
take part in vaccination High
12. I come from a family who does not take
1.79 .84
part in immunization/vaccination Moderate
13. I have my own beliefs about vaccination 2.18 .82 High
14. It is not normal that vaccination cause
2.65 .84
fever High
15. My family/partner prohibits vaccination 1.86 .94 Moderate
16. I am always skeptical about getting
2.71 .82
vaccination High
17. I discontinued vaccination due to the
2.59 1.08
news/issue regarding High

N=126; Cronbach alpha - .785

Scale Interpretation
0 to 0.99 low
1 to 1.99 moderate
2 to 2.99 high
3 to 4.00 very high

As shown in the table above, the mean scores per item from 1 to 17 which

fall between moderate to high interpretation. Items with mean scores between 1

to 1.99 has moderate interpretation and high interpretation between 2 to 2.99.

Table 6. Factor Analyses on Parental Decisions to Vaccination

Item Components Factor Eigenvalue Variance
Loading Explained
(%)
Belief
5 My knowledge about
vaccine/vaccination is .862
insufficient
4 I prioritize other matters more .674
 45

than vaccine
8 I am not updated of the latest
news or issues regarding .641
vaccine/vaccination
16 I am always skeptical about
.633
getting vaccination
6 I do not believe in the vaccine
.621 2.649 18.92
because of its harmful effects

Family
12 I come from a family who does
not take part in .870
immunization/vaccination
15 My family/partner prohibits
.826
vaccination
13 I have my own beliefs about
.805 2.270 16.22
vaccination

Anxiety
9 I have a fear of needle and/or
blood due to the things I have
.922
witnessed from my family/other
people
10 I am afraid of the pain being
inflicted during or after .875 1.941 13.86
vaccination

Accessibility
3 I recently relocated so I do not
know the location of the health .830
center
1 I live far from the nearest health
.816
center
2 I have no budget for vaccines .678 1.877 13.41

Media
7 I am not easily influenced by the
news I see or hear from the .912 1.168 8.34
media about vaccination
Total Cumulative Variance 70.75

N=126; factor loadings of <0.40 were removed

 46

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .644 (KMO

>.60; recommended value), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2

(91) = 675.296, p < .001) and the communalities were all above .40, this confirms

that each item shared some common variance with other items. Given these

indicators, factor analysis was deemed to be suitable with all 17 items (N=126).

Principal components analysis was used to identify and compute

composite scores for the factors underlying the parental decisions to vaccination.

The eigen values indicated that the factors explained 18.92%, 16.2%, 13.86%,

13.41%, and 8.34% of the variance respectively.

The minimum criteria of having a primary factor loading of .4 or above was

set, there were cross-loadings identified and were omitted when the loading

value difference is 0.2 or higher. Using orthogonal (varimax) rotations with Kaizer

Normalization, the five namely Belief, Family, Anxiety, Accessibility and Media as

the components were identified. The components explained 70.75% of the total

variance.

Table 7. Internal Reliability Analysis of Instrument Developed for Parental

Decision Making to Vaccination
Component Cronbach alpha Interpretation
Belief 0.765 Acceptable
Family 0.794 Acceptable
Anxiety 0.912 Acceptable
Accessibility 0.677 Acceptable
Media Not tested

The table above presents the Cronbach alpha measurements of each of

the components tested. The results showed that the items under each dimension

were internally consistent and hence, reliable. This means that the tool
 47

developed to assess the parental decision to vaccination measures the four

components namely belief, family, anxiety and accessibility. However, the

internal reliability of media component contains only one question.

Table 8. Level of Parental Decision Scores per Component Identified

Item Components Mean SD Interpretation
Belief
5 My knowledge about
vaccine/vaccination is insufficient 2.30 0.83 High
4 I prioritize other matters more than
vaccine 2.88 0.90 High
8 I am not updated of the latest news
or issues regarding
vaccine/vaccination 2.33 0.80 High
16 I am always skeptical about getting
vaccination 2.71 0.82 High

6 I do not believe in the vaccine

because of its harmful effects 2.41 0.72 High
Category Mean 2.53 0.81 High

Family
12 I come from a family who does not
take part in immunization/vaccination 1.79 0.84 Moderate
15 My family/partner prohibits
vaccination 1.86 0.94 Moderate
13 I have my own beliefs about
vaccination 2.18 0.82 High
Category Mean 1.94 0.87 Moderate

Anxiety
9 I have a fear of needle and/or blood
due to the things I have witnessed 2.59 1.08
from my family/other people High
10 I am afraid of the pain being inflicted
2.83 1.07
during or after vaccination High
Category Mean 2.71 1.07 High
 48

Accessibility
3 I recently relocated so I do not know
1.47 0.86
the location of the health center Moderate
1 I live far from the nearest health
1.65 0.77
center Moderate
2 I have no budget for vaccines 1.45 0.72 Moderate
Category Mean 1.52 0.79 Moderate

Media
7 I am not easily influenced by the
news I see or hear from the media 2.67 0.73
about vaccination High
Category Mean 2.67 0.73 High
Scale Interpretation
0 to 0.99 low
1 to 1.99 moderate
2 to 2.99 high
3 to 4.00 very high

The table above presents the category means based from the identified

components Belief, Family, Anxiety, Accessibility, and Media. These imply the

classification of different factors affecting parental decision on childhood

vaccination in the context of the community. According to the study of Kholod H.

Sagor and Mohammed A. AlAteeq, reported barrier was the Belief that the

vaccine is ineffective and/or unsafe. In the Makkah study, most participants

believed the seasonal influenza vaccine for example to be unsafe, and reported a

fear of possible side effects while in Lebanon, thinking that the vaccine was not

needed was the only correlate found to be significantly associated with

abstinence from regular vaccination. In the study of Irene A. Harmsen et al., the

parents discussed the different experiences they had with their social

environment. Sometimes their social environment, such as their Family,

influenced their thinking about vaccination. Anxiety is another important factor.

 49

According to the study of Taddio A. et al., needle fears are a documented barrier

to immunization in children and adults. According to Helen Bedford’s study, it is

believed that adding the concept of ‘convenience’ (and its related notion of

parental prioritization) to a definition of hesitancy is problematic. It bundles

together concepts relating to individuals’ decisions (selecting out or refusing

vaccines) with individual and system-level factors that may contribute to

difficulties accessing vaccines. Media representation of vaccine side effects

impacts the success of immunization programs globally. Exposure to the media

can cause individuals to feel hesitant toward, or even refuse, vaccines. Based on

the study of Bach Xuan Tran et al., results revealed a significantly high rate of

vaccine hesitancy and refusal among subjects living in an urban setting in

Vietnam, after hearing about AEFIs in the media.

 50

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presented the complete aspects of the research study. The

summary provides a general idea of the study in relation to the Factors Affecting

Parental Decisions toward childhood vaccination. The conclusions provide

answers to the problem presented in the study and which, the researchers

pointed out some recommendations that might aid in the further betterment of the

research study.

SUMMARY

The primary objective of this study to assess the reasons why parents

were not to have their children vaccinated using a Sequential Exploratory

Research. Upon the conduction of the study, particularly in the qualitative phase,

several reasons were extracted out of the participants or respondents such as

Fear, Media, Transportation, Norms, Personal barriers such as time

management and laziness, and unexpected circumstances. Validity and

reliability tests were done which resulted to the trimming down of identified

themes. After which, final constructs were classified according to the item where

they belong. The items include Belief, Anxiety, Family, and Accessibility.
 51

These items were derived in hopes for the improvement or enhancement

of the government interventions made involving vaccination especially at times of

outbreaks and re-emergence of vaccine-preventable diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

After a thorough conduction of the study and generation of results, the

researchers deduced the following conclusions:

1. Protection for their children is what encourages the parents to avail

vaccination especially at this time of the year wherein outbreaks

and re-emergence of vaccine-preventable disease are present.

2. The reasons why parents do not allow their children to be

vaccinated are:

a. Transportation

b. Financial problems

c. Lost of will to vaccinate their child/laziness

d. Fear

e. Lack of knowledge

f. Time management

g. Norms

h. Unexpected occurrences

3. The mean score of each item derived from the reasons are:

a. Item 1 had a mean score of 1.65

b. Item 2 had a mean score of 1.45

 52

c. Item 3 had a mean score of 1.47

d. Item 4 had a mean score of 2.88

e. Item 5 had a mean score of 2.30

f. Item 6 had a mean score of 2.41

g. Item 7 had a mean score of 2.67

h. Item 8 had a mean score of 2.33

i. Item 9 had a mean score of 2.59

j. Item 10 had a mean score of 2.83

k. Item 11 had a mean score of 2.63

l. Item 12 had a mean score of 1.79

m. Item 13 had mean score of 2.18

n. Item 14 had a mean score of 2.65

o. Item 15 had a mean score of 1.86

p. Item 16 had a mean score of 2.71

q. Item 17 had a mean score of 2.59

4. The underlying dimensions that affect the parents’ decision toward

childhood vaccination are as follows:

a. Beliefs

b. Family

c. Anxiety and;

d. Accessibility
 53

5. The internal reliability of each factor determined are:

Belief 0.765
Family 0.794
Anxiety 0.912
Accessibility 0.677
Media Not tested
- Factor with an internal reliability of 0.7 and above are interpreted as

acceptable.

6. The mean level of each determined factor that affects parents’ decision

towards vaccination of their children are:

a. Item 1 had a moderate mean level

b. Item 2 had a moderate mean level

c. Item 3 had a moderate mean level

d. Item 4 had a high mean level

e. Item 5 had a high mean level

f. Item 6 had a high mean level

g. Item 7 had a high mean level

h. Item 8 had a high mean level

i. Item 9 had a high mean level

j. Item 10 had a high mean level

k. Item 11 had a high mean level

l. Item 12 had a moderate mean level

m. Item 13 had a high mean level

 54

n. Item 14 had a moderate mean level

o. Item 15 had a moderate mean level

p. Item 16 had a high mean level

q. Item 17 had a high mean level

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on findings, it is recommended that the future researchers,

government and other sectors utilize the study to develop a theory for the

existing tool designed through Structural Equation Modeling. Another focal area,

applicable to the purpose of the study, must be selected. Through this,

healthcare interventions may be enhanced and modified by focusing on the

dimensions determined by the study.

 55

Bibliography

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.doh.gov.ph/expanded-program-on-immunization

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/13879

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/9792

(n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.health.gov.il/English/Topics/Pregnancy/Vaccination_of_infants/Pages/de
fault.aspx

A., P. (2018, December 4). Conceptual Framework: A Step-by-Step Guide on How to

Make One. Retrieved from https://simplyeducate.me/2015/01/05/conceptual-
framework-guide/.

Baumgaertner, B., Carlisle, J. E., & Justwan, F. (n.d.). The influence of political ideology
and trust on willingness to vaccinate. Retrieved from
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191728

Baumgaertner, B., Carlisle, J. E., & Justwan, F. (2018, January 25). The influence of
political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/

Booy, Bock, Clemens, Datta, John, Tj, . . . Schmitt. (2008, February 01). Vaccination
greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Retrieved from
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-
96862008000200016&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es&fbclid=IwAR31bj3firq5M_AOtnE
o8_DrWD7h_EGo0fIL6hWiLF64fEKEKHhgxjLcIig

Cag5fk, W. B. (n.d.). University of Virginia Library Research Data Services Sciences.

Retrieved from https://data.library.virginia.edu/using-and-interpreting-cronbachs-
alpha/

Canedo, K. V. (2018, January 25). Measles vaccination in Davao 64% short of target.
Retrieved from
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/415780?fbclid=IwAR23qik4aQujSjxihdk26WglCJ
mnAFntegXsJ2UzoazZ05gJ3Ba3vAV0eSc

Canedo, K. V. (2018, January 25). Measles vaccination in Davao 64% short of target.
Retrieved from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/415780

Casamayor, L. A. (2018, December 05). Report: Measles kills 22 in Davao City.

Retrieved from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1777302
 56

Castillo, J. E. (2019, February 06). DOH: Measles Cases Are 3,671% Higher This Year
Than 2017. Retrieved from http://www.smartparenting.com.ph/health/your-kids-
health/doh-measles-cases-3-671-higher-compared-to-2017-a00026-
20180425?fbclid=IwAR0MzrAtBBT3lsiKk8nHF9zEq7R0Om9nVmiFR3zXrQZEjLr
Ct4cJzOSTTa8

Center for Innovation and Teaching. (n.d.). Choosing a Mixed Methods Design.
Retrieved from
https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/research_ready/mixed_metho
ds/choosing_design

Cepeda, M. (n.d.). Kids' vaccination rate down to 60% after Dengvaxia scare – DOH.
Retrieved from http://www.rappler.com/nation/195101-kids-vaccination-rate-down-
dengvaxia-scare-
doh?fbclid=IwAR10PsqgKPr0asT9pLhkKQfSc9LjvM0gtlITXXy4xsH7KwCNMuEB
cXazMF0

City Planning Development Office. (2016). DCGeneralProfile20161006160249.

Retrieved fromhttp://cpdo.davaocity.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/DCGeneralProfile20161006160249.pdf

Damnjanović, K., Graeber, J., Ilić, S., Lam, W. Y., Lep, Ž, Morales, S., . . . Vingerhoets,
L. (2018, June 13). Parental Decision-Making on Childhood Vaccination. Retrieved
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6008886/

Department of Health. (2018). Vaccine Preventable Disease (VPD) Surveillance.

Retrieved from https://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/statistics/VPD_MW1-
MW26_2018.pdf

Difference between qualitative and quantitative research. (2019, May 03). Retrieved from
https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/qualitative-vs-quantitative-research/

Dubé, E., Laberge, C., Guay, M., Bramadat, P., Roy, R., & Bettinger, J. (2013, August
01). Vaccine hesitancy: An overview. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3906279/?fbclid=IwAR2Xq_KIgepV
YwOGP0iIufJ1j-lKXAIwW0pTlskG1wcfGvnypMliTFFKMbc

Evans, M., Stoddart, H., Condon, L., Freeman, E., Grizzell, M., & Mullen, R. (2001,
November). Parents' perspectives on the MMR immunisation: A focus group study.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11761204

Exploratory Factor Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.statisticssolutions.com/factor-analysis-sem-exploratory-factor-analysis/
 57

Gavilan, J. (n.d.). FAST FACTS: DOH's Expanded Program on Immunization. Retrieved

from http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fast-facts/195478-doh-expanded-program-
immunization-
philippines?fbclid=IwAR1Kdor8cxIW5u4jB72lEmdnKcgDNH0Kq4UIFo2OSNF_58
QkCz8iIx4e6Ck

Harmsen, A., I., Ruiter, Robert, Paulussen, W., T. G., … E., H. (2012, November 20).
Factors That Influence Vaccination Decision-Making by Parents Who Visit an
Anthroposophical Child Welfare Center: A Focus Group Study. Retrieved from
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/apm/2012/175694/.
Immunization coverage. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/immunization-
coverage?fbclid=IwAR3x04gz3AGvCKC21jwzBRmPM78mjJ2n3a3wVnwHwu0U9p
m9o-e8MSl3Ljg

Immunization coverage. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-

sheets/detail/immunization-coverage

Jorm, A. F. (n.d.). IQCODE: Informant Interviews. Principles and Practice of Geriatric

Psychiatry,141-142. doi:10.1002/0470846410.ch27(iii)

Key Informant Interviews. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/evaluation-options/key_informant_interviews

News, A. (2019, January 08). Save the Children pushes for measles vaccines to stop
deaths. Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/08/19/save-the-children-
pushes-for-measles-vaccines-to-stop-deaths

Oraby, T., Thampi, V., & Bauch, C. T. (2014, February 12). The influence of social
norms on the dynamics of vaccinating behaviour for paediatric infectious diseases.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078885/.
Parents' Refusal to Vaccinate their Children: An Increasing Social Phenomenon Which
Threatens Public Health. (2014, October 05). Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814048411?fbclid=IwAR1
YYuH1lSbwn99J7CQU-QIivxFEx0hsXSzob7Y1tie4QP7u4k3_I9jI648

Philippines Recommended Vaccinations: Routine Immunizations. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.iamat.org/country/philippines/risk/routine-immunizations

Public Trust in Vaccines Plummets After Philippines Dengue Crisis. (n.d.). Retrieved
from http://www.voanews.com/a/public-trust-in-vaccines-plummets-after-philippines-
dengue-crisis/4621682.html?fbclid=IwAR2nJx8KjC-MUi5SwQjDs8NbT70WdyRc-
T4K_e7VGkV6Ap6sVQXDaJpSYqw
 58

Qiu-Shultz, Z. (2013, December 1). Factors Associated with Parental Decision Making
and Childhood Vaccination. Retrieved from
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3020&context=thesesd
issertations

SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. (2014, October 1). Appendices to the
Report of the Sage Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2014/october/2_SAGE_Appen
dicies_Background_final.pdf

Sagor, K. H., & AlAteeq, M. A. (2018, July). Beliefs, attitudes, and barriers associated
with the uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccine among patients visiting primary
healthcare clinics. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6146252/.
Taddio, A., Ipp, M., Thivakaran, S., Jamal, A., Parikh, C., Smart, S., … Katz, J. (2012,
July 6). Survey of the prevalence of immunization non-compliance due to needle fears
in children and adults. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22617633.

Thematic analysis. (2019, June 26). Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_analysis

The Selection of a Research Design. (2008). Sage Pub [PDF File]. Retrived from
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-
binaries/27395_Pages5_11.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ChgyEqeJFFZV0s-
hhc8gEQ27iTEomNpKr9E6UT0a-o6xWTqR9LMGVdaA

Tran, B. X., Boggiano, V. L., Nguyen, L. H., Latkin, C. A., Nguyen, H. L. T., Tran, T. T.,
… Ho, R. C. (2018, September 6). Media representation of vaccine side effects and its
impact on utilization of vaccination services in Vietnam. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6134944/.

University of St. Andrews (GB). (n.d.). Analysing Likert Scale/Type Data. Retrieved
from https://www.st-
andrews.ac.uk/media/capod/students/mathssupport/Likert.pdfandrews.ac.uk/medi
a/capod/students/mathssupport/Likert.pdf

Unlisted. (2018, April 30). UNICEF: Philippines' immunization coverage decreasing.

Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/health-and-
family/2018/04/30/1810905/unicef-philippines-immunization-coverage-decreasing

Unlisted. (2019, February 09). Mandatory immunization ordered. Retrieved from

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/02/10/1892465/mandatory-immunization-
ordered
 59

Vaccine Hesitancy, Refusal and Access Barriers: The Need for clarity in
terminology. (n.d.). Semanti Scholar [PDF File]. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/af53/57d30fe5125de375024716b65067e491f2a7.pdf

Valido, E. M., Laksanawati, I. S., & Utarini, A. (2018, September 10). Acceptability of
the dengue vaccination among parents in urban poor communities of Quezon City,
Philippines before and after vaccine suspension. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6131740/

Writer, I. D. (2019, February 18). Social Medicine: The Effect of Social Media on the
Anti-Vaccine Movement. Retrieved from
https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/prevention/anti-vaccine-sentiment-social-
media-opinion-validating/article/811235/
 60

APPENDICES
 61

APPENDIX A

Ethics Compliance Certificate

 62

APPENDIX B

Permission Letter to Conduct Survey

 63

APPENDIX C

Letter to the Family Care and Community Development

 64

APPENDIX D

Informed Consent and Questionnaire

65
 66

University of the Immaculate Conception

College of Medical and Biological Science
Fr. Selga Street, Davao del Sur

Survey questionnaire for the Factors Affecting Parental Decision on Childhood

Vaccination

Name (optional): _________________________

Age: _______
Sex: Male Female

Instruction: Place a check mark on each item according to the following ratings:

4 - Strongly agree (Kusog akong pag-uyon)

3 – Agree (Mu-uyon ko)
2 – Disagree (Dili ko mu-uyon)
1 - Strongly disagree (Kusog akong di pag-uyon)

QUESTIONS (MGA PANGUTANA) 4 3 2 1

I live far from the nearest health center.
(Layo akong puy-anan gikan sa
pinakaduol na health center.)
I have no budget for vaccines.
(Wala koy badyet para pambakuna)
I recently relocated so I do not know the
location of the health center.
(Bago lang ko nibalhin ug puluy-anan
maong wala ko kasayod asa ang health
center.)
I prioritize other matters more than
vaccine.
(Mas ginapalabi nako ang ubang butang
kesa bakuna.)
 67

My knowledge about vaccine/vaccination

is insufficient.
(Kulang ang akong nahibal-an/pagsabot
bahin sa bakuna.)
I do not believe in the vaccine because of
its harmful effects.
(Dili ko mutuo sa mga maayong dulot sa
bakuna.)
I am not easily influenced by the news I
see or hear from the media about
vaccination (e.g. social platforms, TV,
radio, etc.).
(Dili ko dali ma impluwensyahan sa mga
balita na makita o madunggan nako
bahin sa pagpabakuna.)
I am not updated of the latest news or
issues regarding vaccine/vaccination.
(Wala koy ubod bahin sa mga bag-ong
balita bahin sa bakuna/pagpabakuna.)
I have a fear of needle and/or blood due
to the things I have witnessed from my
family/other people.
(Mahadlok ko sa dagum/dugo tungod sa
mga butang na akong nasaksihan gikan
sa akong pamilya o ubang tao.)
I am afraid of the pain being inflicted to
my child/children inflicted during or after
vaccination.
(Mahadlok ko sa sakit nga madulot sa
akong anak/mga anak samtang ug
human sa pagpabakuna.)
I find it tiresome to spend some time to
take part in vaccination.
(Kapoyan ko maghatag ug oras para sa
pagpabakuna.)
I come from a family who does not take
part in immunization/vaccination.
(Gikan ko sa pamilya na dili
nagapabakuna.)
I have my own beliefs about vaccination.
(Naa ko’y sariling pagtuo bahin sa
bakuna.)
It is not normal that vaccination can
cause fever.
(Dili normal ang kalintura na dulot sa
bakuna.)
 68

My family/partner prohibits vaccination.

(Wala ko ginatugtan sa akong
asawa/bana o pamilya bahin sa bakuna.)
I am always skeptical about getting
vaccination.
(Permi ko nagaduha-duha bahin sa
pagpabakuna.)
I discontinued vaccination due to the
news/issue regarding it.
(Wala ko nagpadayon sa pagpabakuna
tungod sa mga balita/isyu bahin ato.)
 69

APPENDIX E

Validation Tools
70
71
72
73
 74

APPENDIX F

Documentation
 75

APPENDIX G

Raw Data of the Pilot Test and Formal Survey

76
77
78
79
80
81
 82

APPENDIX H

Transcription

Key Informant Interview

Joy: Maayong buntag te, ako diay si Joy. Taga UIC, kauban nako akong kagrupo
sa thesis, si Nelle. So, naa mi diri ron te para mag interview tapos para manguha
ug rason gud sa parents na kung nganong dili sila musugot na bakunahan ilang
anak. Unya te, so, okay lang ba na mag interview ko sa imoha te?

Respondent 1: Okay lang.

Joy: Salamat te. So, pila na imong edad ate?

Respondent 1: 29.

Joy: 29? Tapos ano te, imong bana te?

Respondent 1: 27.

Joy: Pila na mo kayears minyo? Pila kabuok inyong anak te?

Respondent 1: tulo (3).

Joy: Pila’y mga edad te?

Respondent 1: 7 ug 6 ug 4.

Joy: So sa tulog nimo ka’anak te, pila ang nakakumpleto ug bakuna te?

Respondent 1: Kung sa center, kumpleto sila. Pero sa, naa man gd inject-inject
sa eskwelahan about sa mga bakuna. Nag-no man ko. Gipangutana ko unsay
gusto nako ngano nag-no ko kay syempre sa Maynila baya, sa eskwelahan baya
to gipang inject ang dengvaxia. Sa eskwelahan baya to, wala baya to sila
nagsuroy suroy. Unya natingala ko nga naay inject sa eskwelahan, unya nag no
lang ko.

Joy: Nangutana ka te kung unsa to na injection?

Respondnt 1: kuan daw, sa boost daw sa immune.

Joy: Aah booster te?

Respondent 1: Oo ana. Bale duha na sila ka-injekan.

 83

Joy: Bale unsa na, Hepa or?

Respondent 1: Sa immune system, sa bata daw.

Joy: Ah sige te, ah so sa unsa na te? Sa bata lang?

Respondent 1: oo elementary, grade 1. Tapos sa kinder nag no pud ko.

Joy: same lang pud na bakuna te?

Respondent 1: Dili, lahi na to sa kinder, bale sa immune lang gihapon pero dili
siya parehas ug panagalan. Pero wala jud siya nainjekan jud kay ni-no ko unya
naa pd siyay allergy. So gi-no siya.

Joy: Tapos ang isa nimo ka-anak te?

Respondent 1: Wala, wala jud nainject, kay nag no jud ko.

Joy: Ah sa asa na eskwelahan te?

Respodent 1: Sta. Ana. Dira uyanguren.

Joy: diraa lang ba sa eskwelahan te? Or sa tanan na na public school?

Respondent 1: Sa kuan, tanan kay naa man daw.

Joy: So nag no lang jud ka te kay wala pud ka kabalo kung unsa jud to na
bakuna.

Respondent 1: Nagpasa jud ko ug papel na nag no ko kay ang reason nako kay
mahadlok ko, kay basig magsugod baya ang inject sa Maynila kay sa
eskwelahan baya to nagsugod tung Dengvaxia.

Joy: Pero kunyari te, if wala tong dengvaxia tapos naa nang sa eskwelahan na
injection injection? Na libre sa DOH. Musugot ka te?

Respondent 1: Musugot guro ko

Joy: Kung wala tong dengvaxia te no? Kay murag nadaot na. Sabagay man gud
te kay daghan man nangamatay pud gud dati. Ang dengvaxia man gd te kuan
lang man gud to, kulang man pud gud to kay kulang ug information na murag
gipagawas. Kay ngano to naing ato, naa mn jud toy mga rason. Pero diba naa
man pu’y uban na wala namatay? Kay naa pud toy rason. Ano lang, kailangan
lang to ug study pa. So kuan te, sayang pud kay usually, ang kanang naa man
gd mga bakuna na libre gud sa public school ang uban kay mga boosters,
kasagaran kay kanang heap na booster. Naa man pud booster sa measles. Naa
 84

pu’y mga 9-11 years old, na mga babae, akong nabal-an kay katong HPV gd te,
kana. Kana te kay mahal jud na sa hospital jud.

Respondent 1: wala man pud gud kabalo ang mga mama ana ba,

Joy: kana pud gani te.

Respondent 1: Kung wala sila explainan, tapos muingon sila na, nganong naa
may ing ana, nga wala may concern akong anak.

Joy: kuan te, okay lang man kaya te? Dili ka matingala te na kalit kalinturahon
imong anak? Pag after bakuna, ana gud te?

Respondent 1: Dili man.

Joy: Naa man gd uban te na mahadlok gud. Tapos matingala lang sila na
kalinturahon tungod sa bakuna. Pero imong bana ate, musugot siya ato te?

Respondent 1: dili pd, siya jud ang number one dili musugot. Tungod lage atong
dengvaxia. Tung sa eskwelahan lage.

Joy: Unsa na ate? Like every year jud sila gaadto?

Respondent 1: Ay katong july. Like from grade 2 to 6. Kay maghatag man sila
daan ug consent kung musugot bajud o dili.

Joy: Pero lahi lahi jud ang gina inject?

Respondent 1: Oo lahi lahi.

Joy: Ano te, siguro kailangan lang jud pd ipahibalo ug tarong sa uban para klaro
sa mga parents kung unsa tong ginainject

Respondent 1: Pero naa may waiver.

Joy: Aah kanang consent te? Unsay nakabutang sa waiver te?

Respondent 1: Ang pangalan lang sa bakuna.

Joy: Ay siguro no dapat nakabutang kung para sa asa jud to.

Respondent 1: Kanang bago sa mga mata sa uban ba, nga naa diay ani nga
bakuna. Kung unsa ba ni.

Joy: Pero kasagaran baya ana te no kay kanang libre sa public schools. So mao
lang to te salamat kaayo.
 85

Joy: Maayonh buntag te, ako diay si Joy. Taga UIC na medtech, kauban nako
diri akong kauban sa thesis. Tapos mag interview unta mi te about sa mga rason
sa parents bitaw na ngano dili sila musugot bitaw na bakunahan ilang anak.
Okay lang ba te na mainterview ka te? Pila na imong edad ate?

Respondent 2: 39 years old.

J: pila na kabuok imong anak te?

Respondent 2: 4 na tawon

J: sa upat nimo na anak ate kay pilay edad sa kamanghuran?

Respondent 2: namatay naman akong kamanghuran.

J: Ay, sorry te.

Respondent 2: pero kuan, 5 years old tung ikatulo. Ang magulang kay 11 years
old.

J: Okay lang te, na mag ask kung nganong namatay imong kamanghuran te?

Respondent 2: pulmonia.

J: Aah pulmonia. Pila pu’y edad ante?

Respondent 2: 1 year and 5 months.

J: sorry te, ano te, sa tulo nila nimo kaanak te, kay kinsa sa ilaha te ang
kumpleto ug bakuna?

Respondent 2: ang duha.

J: aah so ang ikatulo ang dili kumpleto?

Respondent 2: oo.

J: So live-in ka te or kasal ka te?

Respondent 2: kasal mi.

J: so, ngano dili kumpleto sa imong ikatulo sa bakuna te?

Respondent 2: ay sa kuan, nahadlok mi atong mga balita sa manila na daghan

nangamatay.
 86

J: ah dengvaxia..

Respondent 2: Oo dengvaxia, mao tong akong gikahadlokan.

J: aah so mao tong dili kumpleto ang iyang bakuna te.

Respondent 2: oo pero nasugdan siya ug bakuna pero sukad nabalitaan to nako,

wala na nako siya gipapadayon.

J: kinsang desisyon ate na dili na magpadayon ug bakuna te? Imo te or sa imong

bana?

Respondent 2: Akoa oy.

J: aah ikaw te. Pero imong anak te, dili pud mahadlok ug dagom?

Respondent 2: dili man pud

J: imong bana te kay musugot na bakunahan jd imong anak te?

Respondent 2: Oo musugot siya oy ako lang ang dili. Kay hadlok man gud kaayo
to ba.

J: naa man nagaadto diri te no, mga taga BHW?

Respondent 2: oo naa man nagaadto diri.

J: diba nagamonitor mana sila te no? Kulang man gud tong impormasyon te
bahin sa dengvaxia bale wala natarong ug pahitwatig te ba. Pero kabalo ka te
kung unsay pulos jud sa bakuna?

Respondent 2: kuan para madepensahan sa mga sakit. Para dili maagapan ug

kanang mga dengue.

J: kana te, unsaon mana nimo te, di ba naay kulang imong anak ug bakuna te?

Respondent 2: Dili na nako ipakuan, kay grabe mahadlok lage ko kaayo. Ako
nalang atimanon akong anak.

J: pero wala pd ka nahadlok te na kalinturahon ug kalit imong anak te human

bakunahan te?

Respondent 2: dili man. Naagihan man pud gud nako to sa akong 2 kaaanak.

J: Normal lang mana kay nagapaepektibo ang bakuna te. Salamat kaayo te.
 87

Nelle: good morning te, ako diay si nelle. Naa ko diri te bahin sa among
research. Mag interview mi te bahin sa parental decisions te nga nganong dili
pabakunahan ang ilang anak te. Okay ra ba ate na mag interview ko sa imo te?
So karon te, mag ask ko kung pila na imong edad po?

Respondent 3: 35 years old.

Nelle: pila imong anak te?

Respondent 3: Isa lang

Nelle: Isa lang... pila’y edad sa imong anak te?

Respondent 3: 3 years old.

Nelle: kanang imong anak te, kay nabakunahan na siya or nabakunahan pero dili
kumpleto or wala jud nabakunahan?

Respondent 3: dili siya maam. Kay mahadlok man gud mi uy kay katong naissue
sauna na dengvaxia gud. Basi mahitabo to siya sakong anak. Unya isa ra baya
akong anak. Simbako tawon. Ug usa pud dili musugot akong bana.

Nelle: Pero before an ate, tung wala pay dengvaxia, wala pay nahitabo, kaya
nagapavaccine jud mo?

Respondent 3: Oo naga pavaccine jud mi

Nelle: pero tungod atong issue te kay nawalaan mo ug pagsalig sa vaccine te?

Respondent 3: Oo, nawalaan. Unya isa pa kay nagduha duha pud kay basi
magsakit among anak unya mawala siya sa amoa. Simbako lang jd. Huy jusko.
Mao to giundang nako siya ug pabakuna.

Nelle: pero kabalo man jud mo te no sa kanang benefits sa vaccine? Nganong

kailangan bakunahan ang anak?

Respondent 3: oo kabalo man. Pero tungod lang jud ato, nawaalan mi ug

pagsalig na. Kay nahadlok jd mi ato ba.

Nelle: pati pd imong bana te? Dili pd siya musugot?

Respondent 3: oo dili pd siya musugot kay tungod atong balita gud na daghan
kaayo nangamatay ana. Lisod kaayo na matimingan na magpadayon ko sa
bakuna sa akong anak, matingala nalng ko sa unsay musunoday. So mao to,
giundang nalang namo mag asawa.
 88

Nelle: pero naay posibilidad te, na mausab imong hunahuna? Na pabakunahan

nimo imong anak?

Respondent 3: Siguro kung wala nay issue bahin sa bakuna. Kay lisod jud
magsalig karon. Kay basig maunsa lage akong anak.

Nelle: mao pd. Pero kaning sa inyong brgy te, diba naa man moy health center
diri? Ginabalibaran pud nimo te?

Respondent 3: oo kay basi pa lang lahi ang i-inject. Unya gasuroy suroy baya
sila.

Nelle: aah dili pud diay ka magpasalig anang mga tao na mag adto lang diri ug
pinakalit te?

Respondent 3: dili pud. Labi na kung dili kaila nako.

Nelle: Ah maskin ng muingon sila na taga brgy sila te?

Respondent 3: oo, din a jud. Maskin pang naa silay ID. Dili jud ko.

Nelle: sige te. Pero nakabantayan mo ana te kana sa imong anak sa una kay
after bakunahan kay kalinturahon?

Respondent 3: oo nakabantay tawon.

Nelle: normal na siya te. Pasabot te kay nigana ang bakuna sa iyang lawas te.
Isa man pud gud na sa isa ka rason na ginahadlokan sa ginikanan kay
kalinturahon daw ang anak nila tungod sa bakuna. Mao tong ang uban kay dili na
sila magpasalig te.

Respondent 3: Puhon puhon lage oy.

Nelle: Mao ra te. Salamat kaayo te.

Nelle: good morning te, ako diay si nelle. Naa ko diri te bahin sa among
research. Mag interview mi te bahin sa parental decisions te nga nganong dili
pabakunahan ang ilang anak te. Okay ra ba ate na mag interview ko sa imo te?
So karon te, mag ask ko kung pila na imong edad po?

Respondent 4: 20 years old.

Nelle: pila na imong anak te?

Respondent 4: Duha akong anak. 1 year and 6 months ug 8 months.

Nelle: kumpleto ka ug bakuna te? Tung bata pa ka?

 89

Respondent 4: oo tung bata pako. Kumpleto.

Nelle: pero kaning sa magulang nimo te? Kumpleto ni siya te?

Respondent 4: Kulang siya ug bakuna lage.

Nelle: nganong nakulang te? Gihunong nimo siya te or sadyang naputol lang?

Respondent 4: dili, nakakita man gud mi sa balita na atong sa Manila. Na daghan

nangamatay tungod atong vaccine. Mao na karon na magduha duha mi
pabakuna sa among anak kay basi mahitabo to sa among anak.

Nelle: aah naputol kay tungod issue? Unya katong kalive-in te?

Respondent 4: Dili pud to siya kumpleto. Kay wala man gd nagatuo ang mama
sa akong kalive-in bahin sa bakuna. Keso ano daw, dali ra daw magkasakit.

Nelle: dili pud musugot ang kalive-in nimo te? Na bakunahan imong anak te?

Respondent 4: Dili pud kay tungod atong issue lage na sa Dengvaxia.

Nelle: aah tungod jud lage atong issue te? Pero kabalo mo te kung unsay
importansya sa bakuna te?

Respondent 4: Kabalo man. Dili na jud ko musalig balik tungod ato.

Nelle: Pero naay nagaadto na BHW diri te, sa inyoha?

Respondent 4: oo naa man pud.

Nelle: dili lng jud ka musugot te. Di na mausab ang huna huna nimo te bahin
ana?

Respondent 4: Depende lang pud.

Nelle: pero ang kauban nimo diri te sa inyong brgy? Kay dili pud sila gapabakuna
sa ilang anak?

Respondent 4: naa pu’y uban na nagapabakuna, uban kay wala kay utro pud
walay nay salig ug mahadlok najud sila sa bakuna.

Nelle: pero tung gibakunahan imong anak te, kay gikalintura siya te no?

Respondent 4: oo.

Nelle: Normal na siya te, kay pasabot ato kay nagawork ang bakuna te sa iyaha.
Kay usually, ang uban parents ginabasol ang bakuna na magkasakit ilang anak.
 90

Mao tong ginawaisan.. pero karon te, less naman ang issue about sa dengvaxia,
dili nimo ipapadayon ang bakuna sa imong anak te?

Respondent 4: kung wala najud, kung kailanganon najud, ipabakunahan nako

akong anak na.

Nelle: Mao lang to te, salamat kaayo.

Nelle: good morning te, ako diay si nelle. Naa ko diri te bahin sa among
research. Mag interview mi te bahin sa parental decisions te nga nganong dili
pabakunahan ang ilang anak te. Okay ra ba ate na mag interview ko sa imo te?
So karon te, mag ask ko kung pila na imong edad po?

Respondent 5: 28 years old hehe

Nelle: Pilay anak ninyo te?

Respondent 5: isa lang.

Nelle: Pilay edad?

Respondent 5: 2 years old.

Nelle: nabakunahan na siya te?

Respondent 5: Dili kumpleto.

Nelle: ikaw te, sauna kumpleto ka ug bakuna te?

Respondent 5: wala pud. Kay tung time nato mahadlok ko ug dagom.

Nelle: aah mahadlok ka ug dagom te. So karon te nganong alanganin ka sa

imong anak na bakunahan?

Respondent 5: alanganin ba, kay dili man sa kuan kaayo pero ang dagum man
kay ipatindog man gud siya. Ug katong dengvaxia,tung sa tv na daghan daw
nadaot. Basi mahitabo diri sa among mga anak. Ang kapakanan samong anak
ang maargabyado pud.

Nelle: kabalo ka te unsay benefits sa vaccine?

Respondent 5: Oo kabalo man gud. About anang measles. Ambot, doubtful na

ko ron ba.

Nelle: pero naa pud nagaadto diha na health workers diri te no? Tung sa brgy.
 91

Respondent 5: oo naa man. Naa man nagamonitor sila tung mga bata na walay
bakuna. Ginaadto nila sa balay balay pero gahi man jud ug ulo.

Nelle: pero pareha ganina te, na mahadlok ka ug dagum, dili pud nimo iconvince
te na bakunahan?

Respondent 5: utro man gud tung kalive-in nako, talawan ug dagum haha.

Nelle: so, aah naa pu’y posibilidad te, magchange imong huna huna about sa
bakuna te? For example, kung madungagan ang imong pagsabot sa bakuna te?

Respondent 5: naa jud. Posible jud.

Nelle: pero karon mahadlok lang jud ka tungod sa issues. Imong bana ate,
musugot te?

Respondent 5: musugot pero ako lang jud dili.

Nelle: pero naa pud kay kaila ten a ginikanan, na dili musugot na bakunahan ang
anak?

Respondent 5: oo naa pud. Pare-pareha mi ug rason.

Nelle: pero kanang sa tinuohan te? Gikan sa mama or maskin kinsa...

Respondent 5: tung dati, wala jud mi ana.

Nelle: so murag maskin pag bakunahan o dili, magsakit gihapon? Mao na inyoha
te?

Respondent 5: murag parehas lang man gihapon. Nagadepende lang jud sa

immune system sa bata lage

Joy: bahin atong giingon nimo sa pagtusok te ba, kay ing ato jud siya pagtusok
te. Like straight siya padulong sa muscle.

Respondent 5: pero ako man gud, tung pagkakita nako kay grabe nako kahadlok
jud kay basi maabot sa bukog o maskin asa ba na. Basta grabe nanindog akong
balahibo ato..

Nelle: Pero normal mana siya te hehe.. unta unta sunod te no? Salamat kaayo te
ehehe

J:Maayong hapon te, ako diay si joy, sa uic na medtech. So naa mi diri sa akong
grupo karon sa thesis po para mangua mi ug rason sa kung ngano dili sila
 92

musugot na magpabakuna sa ilang anak. Okay lang ba te na mag interview ko

sa imoha te?

Respondent 6: okay lang sa akoa hehe

J: pila na imong edad ate?

Respondent 6: 30 years old. Akong bana kay 44 years old na siya.

J: dugay namo kasal te or live-in mo te?

Respondent 6: live-in mi ron.

J: Kuan te, pila kabouk inyong anak?

Respondent 7: 3 kabuok akong anak.

J: Pilay mga edad sa inyong anak te? Ug sa inyong tulo kaanak te kay pila
kabuok ang wala nabakunahan?

Responden 7: kinamagulangan kay 12, 11 ug akong kamanghuran kay 8. Sa

center, kumpleto sila pero sa eskwelahan nga katong kailangan daw kuno kay
wala nako gipadayon.

J: ngano man ate?

Respondent 7: sukad atong nabalitaan na dengvaxia. Tung nangamatay lage kay

tungod pagka inject pa lang kay pagka ugma nagapakita na ug sintomas na dili
nato or namo maagapan dayon. Naa gani papel ginapadala sa amoa kung okay
ba daw na bakunahan among anak. Unya ako, tung nabalitaan nako to siya, sa
akong sarili kay basi mahitabo tung nahitabo sa mga bata didto sa manila sa
akong anak. Kana ganing ing ana akong panghuna huna. Kay mas nindot ng
didto ko sa akong tinuohan bahin sa bakuna kesa naman sa kung unsay gusto
sa tanan. Simbako tawon.

J: katong ginaingon nimo te na papel, ginabutang ba didtoa na kung unsang

bakunaha ang ginainject sa bata?

Respondent 7: Anti-virus daw. Anti-virus ang ginaingon ay kanang gibutang sa

papel.

J: Ngano mang dili ka ato te?

Respondent 7: Dili ko ato kay na-phobia ko atong sa dengvaxia sauna. Ug sa

akong tinuohan pud bahin sa bakuna ba basig malahi pud kay mas nindot pa
tong kung unsay akong nabal an sa bakuna.
 93

J: imong bana ate?

Respondent 7: wala pud siya nisugot kay utro pd to. Ang iya kay wala daw nindot
na dulot ang bakuna sa bata kay mao ra daw gihapon kay pagkahuman kay
kalinturahon ang bata, magsakit o di kaya musamot kung unsay gibati. Ug ang
isa kay talawan man gud to ug dagum so mao tong wala pud siya nakapabakuna
kay murag halos tanan sa ilang pamilya kay talawan ug dagum.

J: ngano man te na nabakunahan ang inyong anak te, na dili man kaha musugot
imong bana?

Respondent 7: Kuan, kay ako man ang masunod ato. Kay ako man pud gud to
siyang gitarong ug storya bahin ani, so mao to, nisugot nalang siya pero katong
sa eskwelahan lage kay wala na.

J: pero kuan te, kung katong naa sa eskwelahan te na bakuna gud te, kay ihatag
nila sa center? Musugot pud ka te?

Respondent 7:Ay ano man gud ko na tao ba, kuti ba. So murag ginapangutana
nako ang na inject kung okay ba siya. Tapos kuan lage diri sa brgy kay naa pud
nagalibot na gikan center na naga inject. Wala nalng pud ko.

J: so ang imong rason jud te kay...

Respondent 7: Bahin sa dengvaxia, ug dili lang mi muuyon sa injection na inyong

ginahtag sa among bata. Ako naa man koy paninindigan sa akong tinuohan.
Unya dili man pud sila kapugos sa amoa.

J: Sige te, salamat kaayo te.

J: maayong hapon te, ako diay si joy, taga uic na medtech. So naa mi diri para
sa among thesis te. Kay manugtana mi sa mga rason sa kung ngano dili
nagapabakuna ang mga ginikanan sa ilang anak. So, okay ra ba ate na mag
interview ko sa inyoha te?

Respondent 8: okay ra man sa ako hehe

J: so pila na imong edad ate?

Respodent 8: kuan 30 years old. Kami ra edara atong bababe ganina hehe
 94

J: then imong bana ate?

Respodent 8: Kuan 32. Dili pa nuon mi kasado, 7 years na mi galive in.

J: pilay edad sa inyong mga anak te?

Respodent 8: bale mag 7 ang isa, tapos 4 years old tng isa ang katong
kamanghuran nako kay mag 2 years old pa lang.

J: So, kumpleto sila ug bakuna ate?

Respondent 8: kuan, dili kay tungod pud atong sa dengvaxia. pero wala raman
pud to sa akoa.

J: Ngano dili kumpleto ate?

Respondent 8: Ay akong bana dili musugot oy. Kay katong time nga naay giinject
sa bata daw dati sa ila na nagsakit daw kay tungod sa bakuna na pag inject kay
kalinturahon human kay magsakit. Unya sukad ato dili na siya musugot. Mao ni
akong anak diri, kato nagdagan dagan sa gawas.

J: ah so kani lang siya te kay ang dili kumpleto ug bakuna te?

Respondent 8: oo, ang uban kumpleto. Kay layo ra man gd sila ug gap. So bale
wala pa tong issue issue sauna bahin sa bakuna. Ay dili diay ang katong
kamagulangan diay nako ang kumpleto ug bakuna. Kay katong ikaduha kuay
wala nako napapadayon.

J: Ngano wala pud te?

Respondent 8: Kuan katong time niato kay sige mi ug balhin balhin ba human
makalimot kos panahon na karon na diay to ang schedule sa iyang bakuna.
Human mao to.

J: nganong wala to napabakuna imong kamanghuran te?

Respondent 8: kuan lage tong iyang pagkabalo sa bakuna ug kung unsay dulot
sa bakuna sa bata.

J: ngano te? Sa kuan na niya kanang tinuohan o di lang pud siya ganahan?

Respondent 8:di lang pud siya ganahan. Mao lang, di lang pud siya ganahan.
Kuan daw, kung sa brgy namo, kay total kumpleto daw, kay muconsider pa siya
pero kanang gawas na jud daw kay dili na daw siya.
 95

J:So kaning mag 7 kay kumpleto ug bakuna pero wala atong sa eskwelahan na
bakuna te?

Respondent 8: oo. Tung sa eskwelahan, kay ginaingnan mi bahin sa bakuna

kung unsa to siya pero wala ko kabalo or di ko kasabot jud sa kung unsa man
ang ilang pasabot.

J: aah mao pud.

Respondent 8: Pero sa karon, dili sa ko ni ipapadayon ug bakuna ning duha ka

anak nako. Kay dili man musugot akong bana. Kay mas nindot ng magkasinabot
mi ba. Niuyon nalang pd ko. Dili man pud gud ko musugot kung bot istoryahon
kay mahadlok ko tungod atong dengvaxia lage.

J: Sige te salamat kayao te

J: maayong hapon te, ako diay si joy, taga uic na medtech. So naa mi diri para
sa among thesis te. Kay manugtana mi sa mga rason sa kung ngano dili
nagapabakuna ang mga ginikanan sa ilang anak. So, okay ra ba ate na mag
interview ko sa inyoha te?

Respondent 9: okay lang pud gihapon sa akoa.

J: pila imong edad ate?

Respondent 9: 38 years old.

J: pilay edad sa imong bana ate?

Respondent 9: mag 39 years old naman ata siya.

J: aah.. pila kabuok imong anak te?

Respondent 9: isa rapud hehe kapoy kiyud hahahaha

J: hahahah grabe te. So pilay edad sa imong anak te?

Respondent 9: mag 3 years na siya.

J: kumpleto siya ug bakuna te?

Respondent 9: dili raba kumpleto.

J: Ngano ate?
 96

Respondent 9: mahadlok man gud ko magpa injection gani kay tungod anang
pag inject pa lang sa bata kay kalinturahon dayon unya maalarma pd ko ba kay
basi nagkinaunsa na akong anak. Unya ra ba koy kaibutan pa kaayo sa kung
unsa nang bakuna jd. Talawan mn gud jud ko ug dagum ba. So murag ako ang
masakitan sa akong anak. Unya tong ginaingon nila na, okay lage magpa
injection unya ngano man lage tong sa manila kay daghan nangamatay na bata?
Tungod atong dengvaxia, isa nalang gani atong anak unya madisgrasya pa.
Unsaon nalang jud.

J: ahh sige te. Salamat kaayo te.

Focus Group Discussion

Joycylyn: Maayong buntag sa inyong tanan. Ako diay si Joy, naa mi research
about sa bakuna. Pero dili ni siya bahin sa kung unsa jud na bakuna, kung di
bahin sa mga rason ngano dili gapabakuna ang mga parents sama ninyo po, sa
inyong mga anak. So, magsugod ko sa kung pila inyong mga edad po?

Respondents answered consecutively: 47, 43, 55, 50, 25.

Joycylyn: Pila inyong anak ate?

Participant 1: Tulo (3).

Joy: Pila namo katuig diri te? Dugay namo diri te?

Participant 1: Kuan, disesais (16) name ka tuig diria.

J: So 3 imong anak te? Sa tulo nimo kaanak te, pilay edad sa imong
kamanghuran?

Participant 1: 13 akong kamanghuran tapos akong kamagulanga kay 19.

J: Pila sa ilaha te ang kumpleto ug bakuna te?

Participant 1: Akong kamanghuran lang kulang ug sa Hepa.

J: Ngano kulang te siya sa bakuna te?

Participant 1: Kuan, nabalhin naman gud mi diri sa laing lugar. Mao nang wala
pud mi kabalo kung asa diria. O kung pwede ba ipadayon pa.

J: Ngano man nabalhin mo te?

 97

Participant 1: tungod sa trabaho sa akong bana lage. Dili man unta mi

makabalhin ba. Unya kay kailanganon man para sa amoa pud.

J: Wala diay mo nagaadto sa inyong Health Center diri te?

Participant 1: Wala kay naa man gud time diri na sirado sila tapos naa pd koy
ginabuhat kung pwede na ba diay rong adlawa.

J: sige te, pero karon every Wednesday, naa may bakuna sa inyong center te.
Pwede ka mag adto te, kada Wednesday. Ikaw te, pila kabuok imong anak te?

Participant 2: Duha sila.

J: duha? Pila namo katuig diri te?

Participant 2: Since birth man gud ko diri. Diri najud mi.

J: tapos pilay edad saimong kamanghuran te?

Participant 2: 1 year old, mag 2 na siya. Ang akong kamagulangan kay 13 years
old.

J: Kumpleto silag bakuna te?

Participant 2: Ang kinamanghuran lang ang kumpleto ang kamagulangan ang dili
kumpleto.

J: Ngano wala man te?

Participant 2: Kay kanang kuan, (haha) nakalimtan ug adto. (haha) schedule

schedule man gud to. Di man pud nako matansya sakong bakante kay daghan
man gud ko ginabuhat.

J: Ikaw nay? Pila kabuok imong anak nay?

Participant 2: Daghan ko ug anak. Unom (6) sila.

J: Pilay edad sa imonh kamanghuran nay?

Participant 2: 13 akong gamay, 21 akong kamagulangan.

J: Sige nay, pila sa ila ang kumpleto ug bakuna nay?

Participant 2: isa ra ang kumpleto sa kong mga anak.

J: Ngano dili man kumpleto nay?

 98

Participant 2: Ay nalimtan oy. Kapoy man gdu adto sa center. Layo kaayo sa
amoa ang center. Maskin naa pa nay schedule.

J: Pero katong pagbalhin ninyo diri sa brgy nay?

Participant 2: Ah wala na. Nakalimtan na. Kay naningkamot tawon ko diri para
nay mapakaon sa pamilya nako.

J: Pero libre lang baya sa center nay, kada Wednesday. Di man kaya ka
mahadlok ug injection nay?

Participant 2: Mahadlok oy. Labaw na akong mga anak. Mutyabaw man gani
makakita lang ug dagom.

J: Dalaa sila sa Center nay. Libre didtoa nay. Pwede pd mo mangutana kung
unsay dagan nay. Kung ipapadayon ba ninyo o dili ang bakuna sa inyong anak
nay. Ikaw nay(2)?

Participant 2: akong anak kay upat kabuok.

J: pila namo katuig diri nay?

Participant 2: bago lang, didto man gud mi gikan sa tugbok.

J: aah.. Tapos pilay edad sa imong kamanghuran nay?

Participant 2: 15 na. Akong magulang kay 22.

J: Kuan, kanang kinsa kumpleto sa ila ug bakuna nay?

Participant 2: Wala. Wala jud nakakumpleto.

J: Ngano nay?

Participant 2: Kuan, sige man gud kalintura akong anak human, makalimtan na.
Unya ana man gud sila na bawal daw magpabakuna kung naay kalintura ang
bata.

J: Wala napud ka nibalik nay?

Participant 2: Wala napud ko nibalik.

J: Sige nay. Ikaw te? Pila na ka katuig diri te?

Participant 3: 10 years.

J: Kasal mo te o live-in mo sa inyong partner?

 99

Participant 3: live-in mi. Isa lang pd among anak.

J: aah isa. Pilay edad te? Kumpleto ug bakuna te?

Participant 3: 5 years old. Dili kumpleto.

J: Ngano man te?

Participant 3: Lately di ba, nauso tong DENGVAXIA.

J: Ay ano man ate, ang Dengvaxia, dili man dapat na kahadlokan. Pero kanang
sa hepa, kanang sa center, lahi man pud na siya, mas okay na pabakunahan
nimo imong anak. Ngano mahadlok ka te?

Participant 3: kay kuan man gud to, nakakita ko sa balita ba na grabe daghan
kaayo nagsakit na mga bata gd tapos basi maabot pud sa akong anak. Kay
murag nagahatag sila ug dengue sa bata. Pero libre na sa center no?

J: oo te. Libre siya. Ahh so murag mahadlok ka te? Kay utro na ano sa chismis
ang dengvaxia te no? Okay te.

Participant 3: Pero try nako. Sabutan sa nako sa kong ka-live-in. Kay hasta man
pud gud siya nahadlok atong sa Dengvaxia ba. Basi naay mahitabo sa among
anak.
 100

CURRICULUM VITAE
 101

MARLON R. OCON
Aurora Ext., Digos City Cell: +639952237963
Davao del Sur Email: [email protected]

Personal Data:
Sex : Male
Age : 22
Date of Birth : October 15, 1997
Citizenship : Filipino
Status : Single
Father’s Name : Filemar R. Ocon
Occupation : OFW
Mother’s Name : Emelda R. Ocon
Occupation : Housewife
Education:
University of the Immaculate Conception – Bachelor of Medical Laboratory
Science
2016 to Present, Father Selga St., Bankerohan, Davao City
Nazareth High School
2011 to 2015, Nazareno St., Poblacion Uno, Bansalan
Bansalan Central Elementary School
2005 to 2011, Poblacion Uno, Bansalan
 102

FATIMA JESHEE A. TAHIL

04 Pearl St. Landmark 1 Subd. Km. 12, Panacan Cell: +639369063151
Davao del Sur Email: [email protected]

Personal Data:
Sex : Female
Age : 21
Date of Birth : June 23, 1998
Citizenship : Filipino
Status : Single
Father’s Name : Shekar B. Tahil
Occupation : Deceased
Mother’s Name : Jernalyn A. Tahil
Occupation : Pharmacist
Education:
University of the Immaculate Conception – Bachelor of Medical Laboratory
Science
2016 to Present, Father Selga St., Bankerohan, Davao City
Davao Chong Hua High School
2005 to 2015, Sta. Ana corner, J.P. Laurel Ave., Davao City
 103

MARY NELLE L. FABELLA

Blk 8 Lot 14 Garden Villas Elenita Heights, Cat. Grande Cell: +639277283819
Davao del Sur Email: [email protected]

Personal Data:
Sex : Female
Age : 20
Date of Birth : April 26, 1999
Citizenship : Filipino
Status : Single
Father’s Name : Ronelio L. Fabella
Occupation : Government employee
Mother’s Name : Maria Teresa L. Fabella
Occupation : Government employee
Education:
University of the Immaculate Conception – Bachelor of Medical Laboratory
Science
2015 to Present, Father Selga St., Bankerohan, Davao City
Daniel R. Aguinaldo National High School
2011 to 2015, Aplaya Road, Matina Crossing, Talomo, Davao City
Davao Macarius Child Academy
2009 to 2011, Garden Villas Elenita Heights, Catalunan Grande, Davao City
 104

JOYCYLYN MANCERAS

Mandug, Davao City Cell: +639267524694

Davao del Sur Email: [email protected]

Personal Data:
Sex : Female
Age : 21
Date of Birth : November 6, 1998
Citizenship : Filipino
Status : Single
Father’s Name : Julius Lopez
Occupation : Deceased
Mother’s Name : Roselyn M. Latorilla
Occupation : Teacher
Education:
University of the Immaculate Conception – Bachelor of Medical Laboratory
Science
2016 to Present, Father Selga St., Bankerohan, Davao City
La Filipina National Highschool
2011 to 2015, La Filipina, Tagum City
Union Elementary School
2009 to 2011, Tagum City
 105

RVIN JOHN T. SERVILLON, RMT, MSMT

Office: University of the Immaculate Conception, Fr. Selga St.,
Bankerohan, Davao City
[email protected]
November 28, 1991

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Degree undertaking: Doctor of Philosophy in Development Studies:

(Post graduate degree) Development Research and Administration
Institution University of Southeastern Philippines, Davao City
2016-Present

Degree Obtained Master of Science in Medical Technology

(Graduate Degree)
Date Graduated March 2016
Institution San Pedro College, Davao City
Honors/ awards received

 Benemeritus (With High Academic Distinction)

 Best Thesis award
“Inhibition of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1)
Reverse transcriptase activity by Mentha cordifolia
opiz (yerba buena) Plant Crude Extract”

Degree Obtained Bachelor of Science in Medical Laboratory Science

(Undergraduate)
Date Graduated March 2012
Institution University of the Immaculate Conception, Davao City
Honors/ awards received

 Magna cum laude (With High Academic Distinction)

 Most Outstanding Intern (Clinical Proficiency Award)
 PASMETH academic achievement awardee
 Fidelity Cup
 Recognition for meritorious completion on Medtech ng
Kinabukasan (Scholarship grant) from Philippine Association of
Medical Technologists – National and Proctor and Gamble (Safe
Guard) Philippines