BackgroundOverall pandemic A (H1N1) influenza vaccination rates remain low across all nations, including Japan. To increase the rates, it is important to understand the motives and barriers for the acceptance of the vaccine. We conducted this study to determine potential predictors of the uptake of A (H1N1) influenza vaccine in a cohort of Japanese general population.Methodology/Principal FindingsBy using self-administered questionnaires, this population-based longitudinal study was conducted from October 2009 to April 2010 among 428 adults aged 18–65 years randomly selected from each household residing in four wards and one city in Tokyo. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed. Of total, 38.1% of participants received seasonal influenza vaccine during the preceding season, 57.0% had willingness to accept A (H1N1) influenza vaccine at baseline, and 12.1% had received A (H1N1) influenza vaccine by the time of follow-up. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, people who had been vaccinated were significantly more likely to be living with an underlying disease (p = 0.001), to perceive high susceptibility to influenza (p = 0.03), to have willingness to pay even if the vaccine costs ≥ US$44 (p = 0.04), to have received seasonal influenza vaccine during the preceding season (p<0.001), and to have willingness to accept A (H1N1) influenza vaccine at baseline (p<0.001) compared to those who had not been vaccinated.Conclusions/SignificanceWhile studies have reported high rates of willingness to receive A (H1N1) influenza vaccine, these rates may not transpire in the actual practices. The uptake of the vaccine may be determined by several potential factors such as perceived susceptibility to influenza and sensitivity to vaccination cost in general population.

No abstract

No abstract

diseases were focused on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, hepatitis, and diabetes and its complications. The paper numbers of utility values that were derived from references, direct measurement and subjective assumption was 315, 82, and 24, respectively. Among these literatures where the state utility value was derived from references, only 23.5% used the value based on Chinese population (all health state utility value based on Chinese population in paper accounted for 12.7%, and a part of health state utility value was 10.8%.). 77% of literatures which the value was based on Chinese population were published since 2015, The key diseases were focused on hepatitis, non-small cell lung cancer and breast cancer. Among these literatures where the utility value was direct measured, most use of the instrument was inappropriate even though these values were from Chinese population. Conclusions: Most of the utility values in the cost-utility analyses in China were from foreign data, few of them were direct measured. Improving the understanding of utility, using own-country values was needed to meet the demands of cost-utility analyses for stakeholders.