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 attributes. 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.