Klaire Harris Rhet1030

Title: Free Influenza Vaccinations for University of Iowa Students
Purpose Statement: Persuade audience that UIowa should offer free flu shots.
Thesis Statement: The University of Iowa should offer students the influenza vaccine for free.

INTRO:

1. Offering the vaccine to students for free is beneficial to the University of Iowa community.

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said last week that flu killed 80,000 Americans last year and sent 900,000 to the hospital—the deadliest influenza season in years." -San Diego State University, Oct. 9th, 2018

Campuses are perfect places for spread of sickness, vaccines are necessary
The hefty price of a vaccine and insurance coverage uncertainty turns people away
More sickness and academic distress prevented in the long run with a change of policy
THESIS- The University of Iowa should offer students the influenza vaccine for free in the SHW sites.

Transition: We will now look into the biggest problems with the current cost, and why it would be an immense benefit for the University to provide a free flu vaccine to its students: Its campus is high-risk, cost scares students away, and long-term effects could be improved.

BODY:

1. Campus is a highly prosperous environment for influenza, it puts unvaccinated students at risk.

Condusive conditions (CDC)

spread it to others up to about 6 feet away
spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk
Spread by landing in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs
spread by touching a surface or object that has flu virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes

2. The high cost of the influenza vaccination deters students from getting vaccinated.

No Budget Room

$55 is a hefty amount to pay
College students are already on low budget, if having any spending money
Many students do not prioritize vaccine into their needed expenses (food, gas, fun)

Insurance Efficacy

Many students, like myself, don't know if insurance covered flu shot
Unsure how to find out
Uncertainty will lead to less students even attempting to get the shot

3. SOLUTION: The University of Iowa should offer influenza vaccinations to students for free in the Student Health and Wellness locations. Other schools have set precedents that can be used as a model, including San Diego State University. This will positively affect our student's health and academics.

SDSU as Base Model

"The free flu vaccine is available during October, while supplies last. Last year, more than 1,200 students were vaccinated, and Student Health Services (SHS) anticipates higher demand this year. The effort is a partnership between SHS in the Division of Student Affairs and the County of San Diego."
The University of Iowa could work as a partnership between SHW, College of PH, and Johnson County Public Health to allocate funds and/or apply for a federal grant.

4. JUSTIFICATION

Herd Immunity- University needs to provide the safest environment for all persons using their campus

Definition- "A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community" CDC
When more people get vaccinated, students who still don't/visitors/family will be better protected

Academics- Institution should create a community where academics can function smoothly with focus

Less absences in classes that students are paying lots for
Prevented distraction of taking care of oneself
Prevent falling behind/making up work

Opposition-
How is the university supposed to pay for this? Partner with surrounding programs
Why not just lower cost? Students are more likely to show up if cost is not a worry at all

CONCLUSION:

1. Review of problem points (Body 1 and 2)

2. Final remarks of solution

Sexual Health on College Campuses:

First-Year College Students Perceptions of Condoms Provided in Dormitories

Klaire W. Harris

University of Iowa

Abstract

Sexual health is not usually the most funded or looked after aspect of a university or college, but it has been studied around the country. There have not, however, been many studies on the perceptions and effect on first-year students in particular. In this research, there was a seven question survey that looks into students’ comfortability, personal impact, and their idea on overall well-being. We found that the students never found the information harmful to them or their peers, but the condom distribution program sometimes had no effect, but was mostly beneficial.

Introduction

College campuses offer an extensive list of opportunities for their students. Sexual health, however, is not usually what the general population looks to check at a university, but it remains a crucial aspect of the health of the attending students. Sex has been a topic of research for thousands of years, and even though many details have been investigated, there is more data to be found on the climate of sexual health on college campuses.

Research on health resources has found a variance on what is accessible on different college campuses. Data from multiple studies shows “traditional” services such as STI (sexually transmitted infection) testing and treatment are consistently common, but forms beyond a clinical interaction- peer education programs, barrier education, and condom distribution are not quite as prevalent; they, however, are effective and on the rise (Butler et al., Eisenberg et al.). Condoms, when used properly, significantly assist in the prevention of STI transmission, reducing the need for the secondary and tertiary clinical services.

Condom distribution at universities has also been a common topic among researchers of sexual health. Sexual activity is particularly high among secondary-education populations, and condoms are one of the cheapest and simplest methods of protection during intercourse. Sources that have conducted research on this topic have found that most colleges and universities are implementing distribution programs for condoms, whether to protect from STIs, HIV/AIDS, or as a general concern for healthy and safe sexual behavior (Butler et al., Eisenberg et al., Horn and Brigham, Trojan Brands).

Researchers have also found it beneficial to include the opinions of the general population of students attending the universities studied. Eisenberg et al. and Horn and Brigham chose to interview students of both two and four-year universities for their thoughts, finding that most found the sexual health services offered were positives aspects of their campus (Eisenberg et al., Eisenberg et al.). These studies, however, provided little expanded detail into why students believed the available services were thought to be positive.

Plenty of research was been conducted about resources for sexual health, condom distribution, and even the opinions of general students attending different style colleges. There has not, however, been enough data reported on first-year students’ perception of provided condoms. This research explored whether this population, in particular, has found that condom distribution within dorms has improved their sexual safety- by increasing use of the barrier- or if the open accessibility has made students more comfortable around this type of contraceptive. The anonymous survey conducted asked first-year students specifically about their thoughts regarding this topic.

Methods

Participants

This survey was completed by thirty first-year college students at the University of Iowa. The participants were studying various majors including biomedical science, biochemistry, political science, education, business, psychology, as well as those undecided and many others across the spectrum of fields. The survey respondents came from differing backgrounds and home locations as well- Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Colorado, and even two international students from New Zealand and Amsterdam. They were all part of a “New Student Housing” LLC, or living learning community, in Catlett hall, floors five and six. This type of LLC was more likely to have a diverse population of personalities and opinions than a sample of an interest-specific LLC would.

Procedures

This research was obtained through the collection of data by survey. The survey was handed out on a sheet of paper, one per person, that clearly stated the purpose of the research and an assurance of anonymity. See appendix one for an example of the exact survey taken by the students. It was seven questions long, mostly yes or no answer choices, with some a variation of the like. One had three other answer choices, and the last question was a write-in follow up question to the one preceded it.

Data Analysis

Data from the survey was sorted out and compared. Each question was analyzed to provide a valid observation of a prominent answer chosen by the students. The amount of people who answered each question was converted into a percentage for better data comparison. It was crucial to find similarities between the responses given for the write-in question in order to categorize and compare opinions of the students. The opportunity to have the students provide their own answers for that question allowed aspects students thought important to this topic, but possibly not covered in the survey questions, to be addressed.

Results

The data from the survey was sorted into three groups- comfortability, personal sexual health impact, and thoughts on overall effect of dorm distribution on the campus’s well-being. These results were drawn from firsthand experiences of the survey participants in order to gain a greater understanding of first-year students’ perceptions of condoms in the dormitories. For references to the questions of the survey, see Appendix for exact format.

Comfortability

Condom distribution occurs more often on college campuses than high school campuses. Because of this, students may not be used to the presence of the contraceptive, let alone such a blatant accessibility, creating a possible new atmosphere. Therefore, results from the survey were analyzed for comfortability as a critical aspect of first-year students’ perspectives. Conclusions of comfortability were drawn from questions one and five.

Figure 1.1: Responses based on previous personal comfort with dormitory condom distribution- question 1. Percentages are converted from the amount of people responding with that answer out of 30.

This was the first question on the survey. Almost one-third of the participants answered

that no, they were not surprised by the condom distribution in dormitories. A feeling of surprise could suggest that the participant was less comfortable around condoms at least at the beginning of the adjustment to the new environment. While completing the survey, one participant mentioned that her older sibling told her that there would be condoms in the hallways, but it still felt different for the respondent. Lack of surprise, to address the other side, may indicate an experience around condoms or a previous knowledge of what the new environment would be like, which may suggest comfortability.

Figure 1.2: Responses based on present personal comfort with the dormitory condom distribution – question 5. Percentages calculated the same.

Results from question five indicate that very few of the surveyed population feel uncomfortable by the blatant distribution of condoms in a location so intrinsic to their day-to-day lives. A slight majority, 53.3%, found their comfort level unaffected by the location and accessibility of these condoms, but according to the data, a very similar number of respondents, 40%, reported that they do, in fact, feel more comfortable around condoms after living with this form of distribution. Self-efficacy can be achieved or strengthened by a sense of comfortability. With a sense of self-efficacy, there will usually follow an increase of approaching the use of various things, including condoms, in a healthy manner. The next focus will analyze the data for that purpose.

Personal Impact

A condom distribution program is not effective if it is not able to successfully promote healthy sexual behavior. Questions two, three, and four each asked the participant about the effect of the condom accessibility on their own sexual health choices in order to find if the program is effective in these students’ lives.

The results of question two were a surprise. This question asked if the respondent has grabbed at least one condom from a supply displayed on campus. Answer choices were only “Yes” and “No,” and the outcome was completely split, 50% for each response. “Yes” responses were expected to be in the majority, but that turns out not to be the case. That was the hypothesis based on how quickly the provided condoms are taken. A personal interview would have possibly opened a conversation as to why it is only half, but conceivable reasons are a lack of necessity, the stigma of being seen grabbing one, or that the individuals who did take, did not leave any for others.

Questions three and four were very similar, the only difference being one is asking about condom use for vaginal or anal sex, and the other is asking about condom use to perform oral sex.

Figure 2.1: Responses based on likelihood of condom use for vaginal/anal sex since they are supplied and free on campus for student accessibility- question 3.

The data collected from the third question was not unexpected. Even though there were some that would not have wanted to use the provided condoms, and one that doesn’t use condoms at all for vaginal or anal sex, almost 47% reported that they would have gotten and used one even if they were not provided, and a close 43.3% answered that the accessibility of condoms would make them more likely to use them. These results may indicate that the distribution programs may not be the primary source for contraceptives for sexually active students, but they do positively affect almost half of students’ sexual health, as well as their bank account.

Figure 2.2: Results based on likelihood of condom use for oral sex since they are supplied and free on campus for student accessibility- question 4.

Even though question three and four are set up almost the exact way- the only difference being what type of sex- the results were immensely different. As you can see in figures 2.1 and 2.2, the amount of people who do not use a condom grows significantly between vaginal/anal and oral sex, with the gap at approximately 57%. In this chart, however, the next greatest is “No change- would have gotten and used one anyway,” which received 16.7% of the answers, very different from the question before it. This data collected from the students suggests that condom distribution, even though it increased the likelihood of about 13% of students, it does not have an effect on most students for oral sex.

Campus Well-Being

If a secondary institution is putting money into a certain program, especially for health, they are going to wasn’t a certainty that it is going to be beneficial for their campus. The questions and answers for the last questions, numbers six and seven, went together to assess students’ thoughts on the overall effect of the condom distribution program on students’ well-being.

Figure 3.1: Results based on what effect students found the condom distribution in dorms to have on their enrolled population overall- question 6.

These results strongly demonstrate students’ approval of the condom distribution program the University of Iowa campus has. None of the participants thought the program to be harmful to the well-being of students, and only one of the thirty believed it had no effect. This does not correlate perfectly to the data from the students’ personal health impact, but it does still make a critical point.

Question seven did not fit the same format as the other questions, but it was an interesting part of the research. Each person had the opportunity to write why they believed this program has had the effect is did, in their own words. Even though phrases were different, most commented on how the increased accessibility results in more people using the condoms. Close after that was the response that these provided condoms prevent the spread of STIs, and another was that this blatant display promotes safe sex, that students will have sex regardless, and some mentioned that the people have “no excuse” not to use a condom since they are free and provided. The student that said the program has no effect on students’ well-being said that there is no change because “if they were concerned, they would get one [a condom] anyway.”

Discussion

This study addressed the gap of research on student sexual health programs- first-year students’ perspectives and relationship with the condom distribution in the dormitories. This data indicates that while students may not have become necessarily more “comfortable” around condoms, the effect on students’ personal sexual health, as well as on the general student population of the campus, if present, is highly thought to be beneficial.

The methods of the study were limited to a short survey, so details of the research are not as in-depth as they could have been. It would have been more informational to have follow-up questions behind many of the questions, or more answer choices to be more clear and inclusive to those that may not be sexually active or planning on it, or that do not need to use condoms because of the genitalia involved in the sexual activities. Also, students could have lied if they felt guilty about a certain answer.

First-year students now have a voice in the findings of the effect of condom distribution, which has not been specifically seen or studied much before. Since the first year is a critical turning point for many people, they can be more highly affected and influenced by environments.

Future research could investigate further into usage among freshmen, expanding the pool of respondents and going deeper into the questioning.

References

Butler, S. M., Ragan, K., Black, D. R., Funke, B. (2014). Theoretical assessment of university

condom distribution programs: An institutional perspective. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 17, 4-15. http://www.ejhs.org/volume17/assessment.html

Eisenberg, M. E., Garcia C. M., Frerich, E. A., Lechner, K.E., Lust, K. A. (2012). Through

the eyes of the student: What college students look for, find, and think about sexual

health resources on campus. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 9(4), 4-5. DOI: 10.1007/s13178-012-0087-0

Eisenberg, M. E., Lechner, K. E., Frerich, E. A., Lust, K. A., Garcia, C. M. (2012).

Characterizing sexual health resources on college campuses. Journal of

Community Health, 37(5), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9536-6

Horn, P. A., Brigham, T. A. (1996). A self-management approach to reducing aids risk in

sexually active heterosexual college students. Behavior and Social Issues, 6(1), 4-10.

https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v6i1.278

(2016). 2016 Sexual health report card. Retrieved from http://www.trojanbrands.com/en/sex-information/Sexual-Health-Report-Card

Appendix

Student Research Survey

The purpose of this survey is to provide data on whether first year dorm residents think or act differently about condoms after having them clearly displayed and accessible.

Note: You will remain anonymous throughout the survey and subsequent analysis writing- please answer honestly for accurate data

1. When you moved in were you surprised to see condoms in the hallways of dorms?

a. Yes

b. No

2. Have you grabbed at least one condom from a supply displayed on campus?

a. Yes

b. No

3. Are you more likely to use a condom for vaginal/anal sex since they are supplied than if they were not?

a. Yes, more likely

b. No, I do not/would not want to use the condoms provided in dorms

c. No change- would have gotten and used one anyway

d. No change- I do not use condoms during this sexual activity

4. Are you more likely to use a condom for oral sex since they are supplied than if they were not?

a. Yes, more likely

b. No, I do not/would not want to use the condoms provided in dorms

c. No change- would have gotten and used one anyway

d. No change- I do not use condoms during this sexual activity

5. Do you feel more comfortable around condoms since living in a space with them in the open?

a. Yes

b. No, I am uncomfortable

c. No change

6. (Fill in the blank): Having condoms free and accessible to students is/has _______ to students’ well-being.

a. Beneficial

b. Harmful

c. No effect

7. (Write in) Referring to #6: Why?

Klaire Harris Rhet1030

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Possible Hooks

Speech Outline

Monday, November 12, 2018

Sample Analysis

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Speech 2: Topic Proposal

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

What is Major Speech 2?

Thursday, November 1, 2018

Peer Review Reflection

Monday, October 29, 2018

Research Paper Rough Draft