IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0054149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Perceived Risks on the Demand for Vaccination: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Md Z Sadique
  • Nancy Devlin
  • William J Edmunds
  • David Parkin

Abstract

The demand for vaccination against infectious diseases involves a choice between vaccinating and not vaccinating, in which there is a trade-off between the benefits and costs of each option. The aim of this paper is to investigate these trade-offs and to estimate how the perceived prevalence and severity of both the disease against which the vaccine is given and any vaccine associated adverse events (VAAE) might affect demand. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was used to elicit stated preferences from a representative sample of 369 UK mothers of children below 5 years of age, for three hypothetical vaccines. Cost was included as an attribute, which enabled estimation of the willingness to pay for different vaccines having differing levels of the probability of occurrence and severity of both the infection and VAAE. The results suggest that the severity of the health effects associated with both the diseases and VAAEs exert an important influence on the demand for vaccination, whereas the probability of these events occurring was not a significant predictor. This has important implications for public health policy, which has tended to focus on the probability of these health effects as the main influence on decision making. Our results also suggest that anticipated regrets about the consequences of making the wrong decision also exert an influence on demand.

Suggested Citation

  • Md Z Sadique & Nancy Devlin & William J Edmunds & David Parkin, 2013. "The Effect of Perceived Risks on the Demand for Vaccination: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-9, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0054149
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054149
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054149&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0054149?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tomas Philipson, 1996. "Private Vaccination and Public Health: An Empirical Examination for U.S. Measles," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 31(3), pages 611-630.
    2. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    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. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    2. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Distinguishing between the method and its application," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
    4. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    6. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    7. Giulietti, Corrado & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Zenou, Yves, 2021. "When Reality Bites: Local Deaths and Vaccine Take-Up," GLO Discussion Paper Series 999, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    9. Proano, Ruben A. & Jacobson, Sheldon H. & Zhang, Wenbo, 2012. "Making combination vaccines more accessible to low-income countries: The antigen bundle pricing problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 53-64, January.
    10. Jennifer A Whitty & Simon Stewart & Melinda J Carrington & Alicia Calderone & Thomas Marwick & John D Horowitz & Henry Krum & Patricia M Davidson & Peter S Macdonald & Christopher Reid & Paul A Scuffh, 2013. "Patient Preferences and Willingness-To-Pay for a Home or Clinic Based Program of Chronic Heart Failure Management: Findings from the Which? Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    11. Battiston, Pietro & Gamba, Simona, 2021. "COVID-19: R0 is lower where outbreak is larger," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 141-147.
    12. John Mullahy, 1999. "It'll only hurt a second? Microeconomic determinants of who gets flu shots," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 9-24, February.
    13. Barham, Tania & Maluccio, John A., 2009. "Eradicating diseases: The effect of conditional cash transfers on vaccination coverage in rural Nicaragua," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 611-621, May.
    14. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    15. Kessing, Sebastian G. & Nuscheler, Robert, 2006. "Monopoly pricing with negative network effects: The case of vaccines," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 1061-1069, May.
    16. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    17. Sok Chul Hong & Eunju Lee & Seojung Oh, 2023. "Unintended health benefits of adopting preventive behaviors during a virus outbreak," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 324-342, February.
    18. Heagney, E.C. & Rose, J.M. & Ardeshiri, A. & Kovac, M., 2019. "The economic value of tourism and recreation across a large protected area network," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. Sumedha Gupta & Kosali I. Simon & Coady Wing, 2020. "Mandated and Voluntary Social Distancing During The COVID-19 Epidemic: A Review," NBER Working Papers 28139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Graff Zivin, Joshua & Neidell, Matthew, 2009. "Days of haze: Environmental information disclosure and intertemporal avoidance behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 119-128, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0054149. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.