Quantifying population preferences around vaccination against severe but rare diseases: A conjoint analysis among French university students, 2016

Quantifying preferences around vaccination against frequent, mild disease with risk for vulnerable persons: A discrete choice experiment among French hospital health care workers

“…We established a list of possible attributes and levels and eliminated items stepwise in discussion between co-authors, until consensus on the most important items was reached. We considered essential to include items corresponding to the above-mentioned health belief model, as well as the 3C-concept of vaccine hesitancy (convenience, complacency and confidence) (McDonald et al, 2015), along with social conformism and indirect protection (Seanehia et al, 2017). Convenience was fixed in the frame, defined as the hypothetical situation of a meeting organized by the occupational health service, with the objective to provide information about the vaccine and to offer immediate free vaccination.…”

“…DCEs have increasingly been used for valuing treatments, preventative or screening interventions (Bridges et al, 2011;Clark et al, 2014;Johnson et al, 2014;Ryan and Gerard, 2003). More recently, this approach has also been used to elicit preferences not only for vaccines, but vaccination programs, including programmatic and interindividual factors as attributes (Determann et al, 2016;Seanehia et al, 2017;Verelst et al, 2018). Seanehia et al (2017) conducted a DCE study among French students and concluded that an explicitly stated potential for indirect protection, and factual information on coverage in the community positively impact theoretical individual vaccine acceptance, while a controversy about potential side effects may have greater negative impact than a confirmed rare severe side effect.…”

“…More recently, this approach has also been used to elicit preferences not only for vaccines, but vaccination programs, including programmatic and interindividual factors as attributes (Determann et al, 2016;Seanehia et al, 2017;Verelst et al, 2018). Seanehia et al (2017) conducted a DCE study among French students and concluded that an explicitly stated potential for indirect protection, and factual information on coverage in the community positively impact theoretical individual vaccine acceptance, while a controversy about potential side effects may have greater negative impact than a confirmed rare severe side effect. Another DCE study among Belgian parents showed that vaccine-related side effects and accessibility (in terms of convenience and reimbursement) were the most influential attributes, followed by vaccine effectiveness and burden of disease (Verelst et al, 2018).…”

‘Vaccine hesitancy’ among university students in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Descriptive analysis on the 735 students that answered to the question on the intention to vaccinate showed that 633 (86.1%) students reported that they would choose to have a vaccination for the COVID-19 coronavirus; on the other side, 102 (13.9%) students reported that they would not or be not sure to vaccine (low intention to vaccinate). This means that in our sample more than one student out of 10 shows low intention to vaccinate (vaccine hesitancy), a percentage that reflects the international literature on general influenza vaccine hesitancy [ 4 – 7 ]. All the comparison analysis showed that responders who chose not to disclose their intention to vaccinate did not significantly differ from the others on demographic and social characteristics.…”

Attributes influencing parental decision-making to receive the Tdap vaccine to reduce the risk of pertussis transmission to their newborn – outcome of a cross-sectional conjoint experiment in Spain and Italy

“…Discrete-choice experiments (DCE) are increasingly used to evaluate individuals' vaccination preferences and underlying decision-making. [28][29][30][31][32] While DCE allows participants to choose from a pre-defined set of attributes, an ADCE format allows more individualized choices, with successive choice scenarios adapted to previous questions in an interactive manner. In this ADCE approach, the respondent is first asked to identify their most ideal vaccination scenario, based upon key determinants that may influence choice (source of infection and likelihood of infection to the newborn, duration of protection, cost, vaccination location, recommendation by doctors or health authorities and supporting information and other opinions).…”