Top

BMC Infectious Diseases

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

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

Authors: Marilyn Emma Diks, Mickael Hiligsmann, Ingeborg Maria van der Putten

Published in: BMC Infectious Diseases | Issue 1/2021

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.

Available only for authorised users

European Centre for disease prevention and control. Individual decision-making and childhood vaccination, meeting report 24 May 2013. Stockholm: ECDC; 2013.

Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger J. Vaccine hesitancy, an overview. Human Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(8):1763–73. https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657.CrossRef

Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Applied choice analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316136232.CrossRef

Brown KF, Kroll JS, Hudson MJ, Ramsay M, Green J, Long SJ, et al. Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2010;28(26):4235–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.04.052.CrossRefPubMed

Harmsen IA, Ruiter RAC, Paulussen TGW, Mollema L, Kok G, de Melker HE. Factors that influence vaccination decision-making by parents who visit an anthroposophical child welfare center: a focus group study. Adv Prev Med. 2012;2012:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/175694.CrossRef

Chung Y, Schamel J, Fisher A, Frew PM. Influences on immunization decision-making among US parents of young children. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(12):2178–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2336-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wachob DA, Boldy A. Social media’s influence on parents’ decision-making process of child vaccinations. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health. 2019;16(1):1–5.

Sisson H, Wilkinson Y. An integrative review of the influences on decision-making of young people about human papillomavirus vaccine. J Sch Nurs. 2019;35(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840518805816.CrossRefPubMed

Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Sarr B, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. A matter of perspective: choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. J Gener Int Med. 2006;21(6):618–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00410.x.CrossRef

10.

Ministry of Health. Immunisation handbook 2017. 2nd ed. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2018.

11.

Goldstein WM, Weber EU. Content and discontent: indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making. Psychol Learn Motiv. 1995;32:83–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60308-4.CrossRef

12.

Thompson AGH. The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: a taxonomy. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(6):1297–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.11.002.CrossRefPubMed

13.

World Health Organization. Immunization coverage. 2019. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/immunization-coverage. Accessed 8 June 2019.

14.

Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization. 2018 assessment report of the global vaccine action plan. Geneva: WHO; 2018.

15.

Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831.CrossRef

16.

Carlsson F. Non-market valuation: stated preference methods. In: Lusk JL, Roosen J, Shogren JF, editors. The Oxford handbook of the economics of food consumption and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 181–215.

17.

Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Mickaels-Igbowke C, MacDonald S, Currie GR. Individual preferences for child and adolescent vaccine attributes: a systematic review of the stated preference literature. Patient. 2017;10(6):687–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0244-x.CrossRef

20.

Poulos C. A review of conjoint-analysis studies of vaccine preferences. In: ISPOR 21st annual international meeting; 2016 May 21–25. Washington DC: United States. Research Triangle Park: RTI Health Solutions; 2016.

21.

Lack A, Hiligsmann M, Bloem P, Tünneßen M, Hutubessy R. Parent, provider and vaccinee preferences for HPV vaccination: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Vaccine. 2020;38(46):7226–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.08.078.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Dubé E, Gagnon D, MacDonald NE. SAGE working group on vaccine hesitancy. Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: review of published reviews. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.041.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sadaf A, Richards JL, Glanz J, Salmon DA, Omer SB. A systematic review of interventions for reducing parental vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine. 2013;31(40):4293–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.07.013.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Odone A, Fara GM, Giammaco G, Blangiardi F, Signorelli C. The future of immunization policies in Italy and the European Union: the declaration of Erice. Human Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(5):1268–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2015.1019980.CrossRef

25.

Council of the European Union. Council Council recommendations on strengthened cooperation against vaccine-preventable diseases. OJEU. 2018;446(1):1–17.

26.

Wohlin C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: EASE ‘14, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering; 2014 May 13–14. London. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2014.

27.

De Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1697.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Heal Econ Heal Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.

29.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2008;6(7):e1000097.CrossRef

30.

Mandeville KL, Lagarde M, Hanson K. The use of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):367. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Munro BH. Statistical methods for health care research. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.

32.

Holly C, Salmond SW, Saimbert MK. Comprehensive systematic review for advanced nursing practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2012.

33.

Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek. Uw onderzoek: WMO-plichtig of niet?. N.d. https://www.ccmo.nl/onderzoekers/wet-en-regelgeving-voor-medisch-wetenschappelijk-onderzoek/uw-onderzoek-wmo-plichtig-of-niet. Accessed 20 Jan 2020.

34.

Veldwijk J, Lambooij MS, Bruijning-Verhagen PCJ, Smit HA, de Wit GA. Parental preferences for rotavirus vaccination in young children: a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2014;32(47):6277–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.09.004.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Brown DS, Poulos C, Reed Johnson F, Chamiec-Case L, Messonnier ML. Adolescent girls’ preferences for HPV vaccines: a discrete choice experiment. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2014;24:93–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-219920140000024002.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Brown DS, Reed Johnson F, Poulos C, Messonnier ML. Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus. Vaccine. 2010;28(7):1702–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.024.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Lloyd AJ, Nafees B, Ziani E, Nicolas L, Fordham BA, Soubeyrand B, et al. What are the preferences of health care professionals in Germany regarding fully liquid, ready-to-use hexavalent pediatric vaccine versus hexavalent pediatric vaccine that needs reconstitution? Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:1517–24. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S87229.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

de Bekker-Grob EW, Jorien Veldwijk J, Jonker M, Donkers B, Huisman J, Buis S, et al. The impact of vaccination and patient characteristics on influenza vaccination uptake of elderly people: a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2018;36(11):1467–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.01.054.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Adams J, Bateman B, Becker F, Cresswell T, Flynn D, McNaughton R, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(94):1–176. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19940.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Poulos C, Yang JC, Levin C, Van Minh H, Giang KB, Nguyen D. Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for HPV vaccines in Vinh Long Province. Vietnam Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(2):226–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.029.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Hall J, Kenny P, King M, Louviere J, Viney R, Yeoh A. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ. 2002;11(5):457–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.694.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Marshall HS, Chen G, Clark M, Ratcliffe J. Adolescent, parent and societal preferences and willingness to pay for meningococcal B vaccine: a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2016;34(5):671–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.075.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Orme B. Sample size issues for conjoint analysis. In: Orme B, editor. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 4rd ed. Madison (WI): Research Publishers LLC; 2010. p. 57–65.

44.

Hofman R, de Bekker-Grob EW, Richardus JH, de Koning HJ, van Ballegooijen M, Korfage IJ. Have preferences of girls changed almost 3 years after the much debated start of the HPV vaccination program in the Netherlands? A discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e104772. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104772.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Ngorsuraches S, Nawanukool K, Petcharamanee K, Poopantrakool U. Parents’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for human papilloma virus vaccines in Thailand. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2015;8(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-015-0040-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Arbiol J, Yabe M, Nomura H, Borja M, Gloriani N, Yoshida S. Using discrete choice modeling to evaluate the preferences and willingness to pay for leptospirosis vaccine. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(4):1046–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2015.1010901.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Bishai D, Brice R, Girod I, Saleh A, Ehreth J. Conjoint analysis of French and German parents’ willingness to pay for meningococcal vaccine. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(2):143–54. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725020-00006.CrossRefPubMed

48.

de Bekker-Grob EW, Hofman R, Donkers B, van Ballegooijen M, Helmerhorst TJM, Raat H, et al. Girls’ preferences for HPV vaccination: a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2010;28(41):6692–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.08.001.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Determann D, Korfage IJ, Fagerlin A, Steyerberg EW, Bliemer MC, Voeten HA, et al. Public preferences for vaccination programmes during pandemics caused by pathogens transmitted through respiratory droplets – a discrete choice experiment in four European countries, 2013. Euro Surveill. 2016;21(22):pii=30247.CrossRef

50.

Determann D, Korfage IJ, Lambooij MS, Bliemer M, Richardus JH, Steyerberg EW, et al. Acceptance of vaccinations in pandemic outbreaks: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e102505. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102505.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Eilers R, de Melker HE, Veldwijk J, Krabbe PFM. Vaccine preferences and acceptance of older adults. Vaccine. 2017;35(21):2823–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.014.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Flood EM, Ryan KJ, Rousculp MD, Beusterien KM, Block SL, Hall MC, et al. A survey of children’s preferences for influenza vaccine attributes. Vaccine. 2011;29(26):4334–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.04.018.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Flood EM, Ryan KJ, Rousculp MD, Beusterien KM, Divino VM, Block SL, et al. Parent preferences for pediatric influenza vaccine attributes. Clin Pediatr. 2011;50(4):338–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922810391247.CrossRef

54.

Gidengil C, Lieu TA, Payne K, Rusinak D, Messonnier M, Prosser LA. Parental and societal values for the risks and benefits of childhood combination vaccines. Vaccine. 2012;30(23):3445–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.022.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Guo N, Zhang G, Zhu D, Wang J, Shi L. The effects of convenience and quality on the demand for vaccination: results from a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2017;35(21):2848–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.006.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Hofman R, de Bekker-Grob EW, Raat H, Helmerhorst TJM, van Ballegooijen M, Korfage IJ. Parents’ preferences for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus in the Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):454. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-454.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Huang Z, Wagner AL, Lin M, Sun X, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Boulton ML, et al. Preferences for vaccination program attributes among parents of young infants in Shanghai, China. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020;16(8):1905–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2020.1712937.

58.

Lambooij MS, Harmsen IA, Veldwijk J, de Melker H, Mollema L, van Weert YWM. Consistency between stated and revealed preferences: a discrete choice experiment and a behavioural experiment on vaccination behaviour compared. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0010-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Ledent E, Gabutti G, de Bekker-Grob EW, Alcázar Zambrano JL, Campins Martí M, Del Hierro Gurruchaga MT, et al. 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. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(5):1080–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2019.1571890.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Liao Q, Lam WWT, Wong CKH, Lam C, Chen J, Fielding R. The relative effects of determinants on Chinese adults’ decision for influenza vaccination choice: what is the effect of priming? Vaccine. 2019;37(30):4124–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.072.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Liao Q, Ng TWY, Cowling BJ. What influenza vaccination programmes are preferred by healthcare personnel? A discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2020;38(29):4557–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Oteng B, Marra F, Lynd LD, Ogilvie G, Patrick D, Marra CA. Evaluating societal preferences for human papillomavirus vaccine and cervical smear test screening programme. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87(1):52–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.2009.041392.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Pereira CCA, Mulligan M, Bridges JFP, Bishai D. Determinants of influenza vaccine purchasing decision in the US: a conjoint analysis. Vaccine. 2011;29(7):1443–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.12.027.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Poulos C, Curran D, Anastassopoulou A, de Moerlooze L. German travelers’ preferences for travel vaccines assessed by a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2018;36(7):969–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.01.004.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Poulos C, Reed Johnson F, Krishnarajah G, Anonychuk A, Misurski D. Pediatricians’ preferences for infant meningococcal vaccination. Value Health. 2015;18(1):67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.10.010.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Poulos C, Standaert B, Sloesen B, Stryjewska I, Janitsary A, Hauber B. Preferences for vaccines against children’s diarrheal illness among mothers in Poland and Hungary. Vaccine. 2018;36(40):6022–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.001.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Sadique MZ, Devlin N, Edmunds WJ, Parkin D. The effect of perceived risks on the demand for vaccination: results from a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e54149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054149.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Sapède C, Girod I. Willingness of adults in Europe to pay for a new vaccine: the application of discrete choice-based conjoint analysis. Int J Mark Res. 2002;44(4):463–76.CrossRef

69.

Seanehia J, Treibich C, Holmberg C, Müller-Nordhorn J, Casin V, Raude J. Quantifying population preferences around vaccination against severe but rare diseases: a conjoint analysis among French university students, 2016. Vaccine. 2017;35(20):2676–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.03.086.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Shono A, Kondo M. Mothers’ preferences regarding new combination vaccines for their children in Japan, 2014. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017;13(4):766–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1255387.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Shono A, Kondo M. Parents’ preferences for seasonal influenza vaccine for their children in Japan. Vaccine. 2014;32(39):5071–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.07.002.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Sun X, Wagner AL, Ji J, Huang Z, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Boulton ML. A conjoint analysis of stated vaccine preferences in Shanghai. China Vaccine. 2020;38(6):1520–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.11.062.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Verelst F, Kessels R, Delva W, Beutels P, Willem L. Drivers of vaccine decision-making in South Africa: a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2019;37(15):2079–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.02.056.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Verelst F, Willem L, Kessels R, Beutels P. Individual decisions to vaccinate one's child or oneself: a discrete choice experiment rejecting free-riding motives. Soc Sci Med. 2018;207:106–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.038.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Wang B, Chen G, Ratcliffe J, Afzali HHA, Giles L, Marshall H. Adolescent values for immunisation programs in Australia: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0181073. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181073.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Wong CKH, Man KKC, Ip P, Kwan M, McGhee SM. Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for human papillomavirus vaccination for their daughters: a discrete choice experiment in Hong Kong. Value Health. 2018;21(5):622–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.012.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharm Econ. 2008;26(8):661–77. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004.CrossRef

78.

Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(8):1738–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.12.007.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, Lidolt G, Denker ML. Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behaviour – a systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005-2016. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170550.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

80.

Chapman GB, Coups EJ. Emotions and preventive health behaviour: worry, regret and influenza vaccination. Health Psychol. 2006;25(1):82–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.1.82.CrossRefPubMed

81.

Bond L, Noland T. Making sense of perceptions of risk of diseases and vaccinations: a qualitative study combining models of beliefs, decision-making and risk perception. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):943. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-943.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

82.

Fine P, Eames K, Heymann DL. “Herd immunity”: a rough guide. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(7):911–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir007.CrossRefPubMed

83.

European Council. The state of health of vaccination in the EU. Rome: EC; 2014.

84.

de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015;8(5):373–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

85.

Lakens D, Adolfi FG, Albers CJ, Anvari F, Apps MAJ, Argamon SE, et al. Justify your alpha. Nat Hum Beh. 2018;2(3):168–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0311-x.CrossRef

86.

Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hróbjartsson A. Chapter 7: considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6. Accessed 8 Aug 2020.

87.

Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research. Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2017.

88.

Drucker AM, Fleming P, Chan A. Research techniques made simple: assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136(11):109–14.CrossRef

89.

Bien DR, Danner M, Vennedey V, Civello D, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. Patients’ preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in cancer treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2017;10(5):553–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Sain N, Willems D, Charokopou M, Hiligsmann M. The importance of understanding patient and physician preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics: a systematic review of discrete- choice experiments. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36(8):1257–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2020.1776233.CrossRefPubMed

91.

Schaarschmidt M-L, Schmieder A, Umar N, Terris D, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(11):1285–94. https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2011.309.CrossRefPubMed

92.

Littell J, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326543.001.0001.CrossRef

93.

Wroe AL, Turner N, Salkovskis PM. Understanding and predicting parental decisions about early childhood immunizations. Health Psychol. 2004;23(1):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.1.33.CrossRefPubMed

94.

Wroe AL, Bhan A, Salkovskis P, Bedford H. Feeling bad about immunising our children. Vaccine. 2005;23(12):1428–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.10.004.CrossRefPubMed

95.

Kristensen DD, Bartholomew K, Villadiego S, Lorenson K. What vaccine product attributes do immunization program stakeholders value? Results from interviews in six low- and middle-income countries. Vaccine. 2016;34(50):6236–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.057.CrossRefPubMed

96.

Neuzil KM. Data and product needs for influenza immunization programs in low- and middle-income countries: rationale and main conclusions of the WHO preferred product characteristics for next-generation influenza vaccines. Vaccine. 2017;35(43):5734–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.08.088.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments
Authors: Marilyn Emma Diks
Mickael Hiligsmann
Ingeborg Maria van der Putten
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Infectious Diseases / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2334
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06398-9

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch now

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits

STEP AAG HeroTeaserCollection image/© Tarek / Generated with AI / Stock.adobe.com, ACC 2024 Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 Pulmonary Vascular Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 Valvular Heart Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 HF and Cardiomyopathies: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, Woman out walking/© Seventyfour / stock.adobe.com (symbolic image with model), Woman checking smartwatch /© saltdium / stock.adobe.com (symbolic image with model), Cardiac catheterization/© Damian / stock.adobe.com

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Drivers of HIV-1 drug resistance to non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) in nine southern African countries: a modelling study

Identifying risk factors for late HIV diagnosis and survival analysis of people living with HIV/AIDS in Iran (1987–2016)

Detection of aerobe–anaerobe mixed infection by metagenomic next-generation sequencing in an adult suffering from descending necrotizing mediastinitis

Effect of sofosbuvir-based DAAs on changes in lower-density lipoprotein in HCV patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Usefulness of convalescent plasma transfusion for the treatment of severely ill COVID-19 patients in Pakistan

Linear and non-linear analysis of heart rate variability in HIV-positive patients on two different antiretroviral therapy regimens

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage