Vaccine eagerness: A new framework to analyse preferences in single profile discrete choice experiments. Application to HPV vaccination decisions among French adolescents.
Adolescents
Choice certainty
HPV
Vaccination
Vaccine eagerness
discrete choice experiment
Journal
SSM - population health
ISSN: 2352-8273
Titre abrégé: SSM Popul Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101678841
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
10
09
2021
revised:
04
02
2022
accepted:
25
02
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We previously conducted a single-profile discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences of adolescents around HPV vaccine communication, finding that only half of participants made variable choices (non-uniform respondents) from which preferences were elicited. In this paper we provide a framework to evaluate post-choice certainty information to elicit preferences even among respondents who uniformly accepted (serial demanders) or refused (serial non-demanders) hypothetical vaccination scenarios. During an in-class online questionnaire among 1458 French adolescents aged 13-15 years old, we collected certainty levels (0-10) after decisions on nine hypothetical scenarios, including four vaccination attributes: information on vaccine-preventable disease type, on vaccine safety, on potential for indirect protection and on vaccine coverage. We developed a vaccine eagerness scale (ranging from -10 to 10), by combining information on the binary decision (accept vs. refuse the hypothetical vaccine) and the decision certainty level. We used random effects linear regressions to evaluate attributes' impact on vaccine eagerness. Sensitivity analyses were performed taking into account low response quality, assessed as invariant certainty and low response time. Attributes' impact on decision certainty were similar between serial demanders (N = 659) and non-uniform respondents (N = 711): mentioning a positive benefit-risk balance significantly decreased certainty to accept (coefficient -0.93), while information on 80% coverage in other countries (+0.33) and potential for disease elimination (+0.09) increased it. Among serial non-demanders, significant attribute impacts were observed only after exclusion of low-quality responses (N = 31): a potential for disease elimination (coefficient: +0.24) and 80% coverage in other countries (+0.42) significantly increased certainty of refusing vaccination. Combining decision and certainty into a vaccine eagerness indicator allowed analysing preferences in the full sample, including "hesitant" respondents, who were sensitive to the content of the vaccination profile. Choice certainty informs on respondents' preferences in single-profile discrete-choice experiments, in particular among those with uniform responses.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
We previously conducted a single-profile discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences of adolescents around HPV vaccine communication, finding that only half of participants made variable choices (non-uniform respondents) from which preferences were elicited. In this paper we provide a framework to evaluate post-choice certainty information to elicit preferences even among respondents who uniformly accepted (serial demanders) or refused (serial non-demanders) hypothetical vaccination scenarios.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
During an in-class online questionnaire among 1458 French adolescents aged 13-15 years old, we collected certainty levels (0-10) after decisions on nine hypothetical scenarios, including four vaccination attributes: information on vaccine-preventable disease type, on vaccine safety, on potential for indirect protection and on vaccine coverage. We developed a vaccine eagerness scale (ranging from -10 to 10), by combining information on the binary decision (accept vs. refuse the hypothetical vaccine) and the decision certainty level. We used random effects linear regressions to evaluate attributes' impact on vaccine eagerness. Sensitivity analyses were performed taking into account low response quality, assessed as invariant certainty and low response time.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Attributes' impact on decision certainty were similar between serial demanders (N = 659) and non-uniform respondents (N = 711): mentioning a positive benefit-risk balance significantly decreased certainty to accept (coefficient -0.93), while information on 80% coverage in other countries (+0.33) and potential for disease elimination (+0.09) increased it. Among serial non-demanders, significant attribute impacts were observed only after exclusion of low-quality responses (N = 31): a potential for disease elimination (coefficient: +0.24) and 80% coverage in other countries (+0.42) significantly increased certainty of refusing vaccination. Combining decision and certainty into a vaccine eagerness indicator allowed analysing preferences in the full sample, including "hesitant" respondents, who were sensitive to the content of the vaccination profile.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Choice certainty informs on respondents' preferences in single-profile discrete-choice experiments, in particular among those with uniform responses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35284615
doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101058
pii: S2352-8273(22)00037-4
pmc: PMC8914374
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101058Investigateurs
Bonnay Stéphanie
(B)
Pulcini Céline
(P)
Agrinier Nelly
(A)
Fall Estelle
(F)
Gilberg Serge
(G)
Bruel Sébastien
(B)
Partouche Henri
(P)
Le Bel Josselin
(LB)
Rossignol Louise
(R)
Ecollan Marie
(E)
Pinot Juliette
(P)
Tron Arthur
(T)
Hagiu Dragos-Paul
(H)
Zuo Minghui
(Z)
Gauchet Aurélie
(G)
Bros Julie
(B)
Juneau Catherine
(J)
Vareilles Gaëlle
(V)
Epaulard Olivier
(E)
Banaszuk Anne-Sophie
(B)
Branchereau Marion
(B)
Gagneux-Brunon Amandine
(GB)
Kalecinski Julie
(K)
Jeanleboeuf Florian
(J)
Jambon Géraldine
(J)
Botelho-Nevers Elisabeth
(BN)
Lasset Christine
(L)
Laetitia Marie Dit Asse
(LMD)
Chevreul Karine
(C)
Michel Morgane
(M)
Raude Jocelyn
(R)
Barret Anne-Sophie
(B)
Bonmarin Isabelle
(B)
Levy-Bruhl Daniel
(LB)
Giraudeau Bruno
(G)
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
All authors declare having no conflict of interest.
Références
Vaccine. 2016 Sep 22;34(41):5013-5020
pubmed: 27576074
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 26;12(7):e0181073
pubmed: 28746348
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Jul 29;3(1):51
pubmed: 31359289
Vaccine. 2021 Jan 29;39(5):805-814
pubmed: 33419603
Vaccine. 2010 Sep 24;28(41):6692-7
pubmed: 20708696
Vaccine. 2015 Nov 27;33 Suppl 4:D106-13
pubmed: 26615169
Vaccine. 2020 Feb 5;38(6):1315-1331
pubmed: 31836255
Vaccine. 2016 Jan 27;34(5):671-677
pubmed: 26740249
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 19;9(8):e104772
pubmed: 25136919
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(7-8):1615-1627
pubmed: 30633623
Vaccine. 2021 Jun 29;39(29):3916-3925
pubmed: 34088507
Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4204-11
pubmed: 25900132
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Sep 03;70(35):1183-1190
pubmed: 34473682
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Nov 2;17(11):4470-4486
pubmed: 34473589