Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments

Abstract

Background Choice-based experiments have been increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs. This study aims to systematically identify and examine choice-based experiments assessing (differences in) vaccine preferences of vaccinees, representatives and health advisors. Methods Five electronic databases were searched on choice-based conjoint analysis studies or discrete choice experiments capturing vaccine preferences of children, adolescents, parents, adults and healthcare professionals for attributes of vaccines or vaccine settings up to September 2020. Data was extracted using a standardized form covering all important aspects of choice experiments. A quality assessment was used to assess the validity of studies. Attributes were categorized into outcome, process, cost and other. The importance of attributes was assessed by the frequency of reporting and statistical significance. Results were compared between high-quality studies and lower-quality studies. Results A total of 42 studies were included, with the majority conducted in high-income countries after 2010 (resp. n = 34 and n = 37). Preferences of representatives were studied in nearly half of the studies (47.6%), followed by vaccinees (35.7%) and health advisors (9.5%). Sixteen high-quality studies passed the quality assessment. Outcome- and cost- related attributes such as vaccine effectiveness, vaccine risk, cost and protection duration were most often statistically significant across both target groups, with vaccine effectiveness being the most important. Risks associated with vaccination, such as side effects, were more often statistically significant in studies targeting vaccinees, while cost-related attributes were more often statistically significant in studies of representatives. Process-related attributes such as vaccine accessibility and time were least important across both target groups. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review in which vaccine preferences of different target groups were assessed and compared. The same attributes were most important for vaccine decisions of vaccinees and representatives, with only minor differences in level of evidence for vaccine risk and cost. Future research on vaccine preferences of health advisors and/or among target groups in low-resource settings would give insight into the generalizability of current findings.

Demand preferences for health management services in a population of older adults with visual impairment in China: a conjoint analysis

“…Patients are a special consumer group and have special preferences for medical services. Therefore, many scholars use the conjoint analysis method to study patients' preferences for medical services [ 48 – 50 ]. In this study, we used conjoint analysis to analyze the demand preferences for different health management services of a population of older adults with VI, to help clinical researchers to formulate appropriate health management strategies for this vulnerable population.…”

A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Vaccine preferences using Discrete Choice Experiments

“…They worked on childhood vaccines, Human Papilloma Vaccine, meningococcal vaccine, Hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus vaccine [24]. A systematic review on choice based experiments on vaccine preferences driving vaccine decision making of different target groups reported vaccine effectiveness, vaccine risk, cost and protection duration as the main factors influencing vaccine decision (Diks et al, 2021). These three systematic reviews have findings similar to our findings although they studied preferences for vaccines other than COVID-19 vaccine; high vaccine effectiveness, low risk of side effects and duration of vaccine protection are reported in all three studies as factors influencing preferences.…”

Modeling the potential economic benefits of an oral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine during an outbreak of COVID-19

“…The primary pathway for the increases in cases and deaths averted from an oral vaccine is through alignment in vaccine delivery modality with patient preferences, thereby increasing vaccination uptake among the currently unvaccinated. The likelihood of this phenomena is backed in the literature as well as market studies, indicating that oral delivery mechanisms are strongly favored over injectables, particularly among the unvaccinated or vaccine hesitant [11][12][13][14].…”

“…One method for increasing the uptake of vaccination in the U.S. is to offer delivery modalities that conform to patient preferences more so than injectable multi-dose vaccines [11]. Several studies have shown that in the U.S., oral vaccines are considered more desirable by patients and a recent study estimated that an oral vaccine against COVID-19 may increase vaccination rates among the unvaccinated by 32%, a population accounting for 92% of the 5,938,358 hospitalization days, 93% of the 817,829 ICU days, and 93% of the 355,276 mechanical ventilation days observed over the December 2021-February 2022 outbreak [11][12][13][14]. One such oral vaccine delivery platform is the Vector-Adjuvant-Antigen Standardized Technology (VAAST) platform, developed by Vaxart, Inc. [15].…”