IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v45y2022ics1755534522000422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stated choice analysis of preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using the Choquet integral

Author

Listed:
  • Krueger, Rico
  • Daziano, Ricardo A.

Abstract

We investigate preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using data from a stated choice survey conducted in the US in March 2021. To analyse the data, we embed the Choquet integral, a flexible aggregation operator for capturing attribute interactions under monotonicity constraints, into a mixed logit model. We find that effectiveness is the most important vaccine attribute, followed by risk of severe side effects and protection period. The attribute interactions reveal that non-pecuniary vaccine attributes are synergistic. Out-of-pocket costs are independent of effectiveness, incubation period, and mild side effects but exhibit moderate synergistic interactions with other attributes. Vaccine adoption is significantly more likely among individuals who identify as male, have obtained a bachelor’s degree or a higher level of education, have a high household income, support the democratic party, had COVID-19, got vaccinated against the flu in winter 2020/21, and have an underlying health condition.

Suggested Citation

  • Krueger, Rico & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2022. "Stated choice analysis of preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using the Choquet integral," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:45:y:2022:i:c:s1755534522000422
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534522000422
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100385?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grabisch, Michel & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Meyer, Patrick, 2008. "A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 766-785, April.
    2. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    3. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    4. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    5. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    6. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    7. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    8. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth, 2019. "Foundations of Stated Preference Elicitation: Consumer Behavior and Choice-based Conjoint Analysis," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 10(1-2), pages 1-144, January.
    9. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    10. McPhedran, Robert & Toombs, Ben, 2021. "Efficacy or delivery? An online Discrete Choice Experiment to explore preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in the UK," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    11. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Edouard Mathieu & Hannah Ritchie & Esteban Ortiz-Ospina & Max Roser & Joe Hasell & Cameron Appel & Charlie Giattino & Lucas Rodés-Guirao, 2021. "A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 947-953, July.
    13. Dubey, Subodh & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A multinomial probit model with Choquet integral and attribute cut-offs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 140-163.
    14. Ricardo A. Daziano, 2022. "A choice experiment assessment of stated early response to COVID-19 vaccines in the USA," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Grabisch, Michel, 1996. "The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 445-456, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    4. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    5. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    6. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    7. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    8. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    9. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    10. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    11. Mesfin G. Genie & Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien, 2023. "Keeping an eye on cost: What can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 1101-1119, May.
    12. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    13. David A. J. Meester & Stephane Hess & John Buckell & Thomas O. Hancock, 2023. "Can decision field theory enhance our understanding of health‐based choices? Evidence from risky health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1710-1732, August.
    14. Galina Williams & Irina Kinchin, 2023. "The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples’ preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 987-998, August.
    15. Oedingen, Carina & Bartling, Tim & Schrem, Harald & Mühlbacher, Axel C. & Krauth, Christian, 2021. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    16. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    17. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    18. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    19. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    20. Dunsch, Felipe Alexander & Velenyi, Edit, 2019. "Job Preferences of Frontline Health Workers in Ghana - A Discrete Choice Experiment," SocArXiv bqx5k, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:45:y:2022:i:c:s1755534522000422. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.