IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i2p177-191.html

Communicating on Vaccine Benefit-Risk Ratios: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Health Care Professionals and the General Population in France

Author

Listed:
  • Lucia Araujo Chaveron

    (EHESP French School of Public Health, Paris, France
    Institut Pasteur, Paris, France)

  • Jonathan Sicsic

    (Université Paris Cité, LIRAES, Paris, France)

  • Cyril Olivier

    (Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES), Paris, France)

  • Gerard Pellissier

    (Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES), Paris, France)

  • Elisabeth Bouvet

    (Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES), Paris, France)

  • Judith E. Mueller

    (EHESP French School of Public Health, Paris, France
    Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
    Univ. Rennes, EHESP, CNRS, Inserm, Arènes - UMR 6051, RSMS (Recherche sur les Services et Management en Santé) - U 1309, Rennes, France)

Abstract

Background We explored preferences around the benefit-risk ratio (BRR) of vaccination among the general adult population and health care sector workers (HCSWs). We estimated preference weights and expected vaccine uptake for different BRR levels for a vaccine recommended during an infectious disease emergence. In addition, we explored how far qualitative information about disease severity, epidemiological context, and indirect protection interacts with these preferences. Methodology This was a cross-sectional study, using a self-administered online questionnaire containing a single-profile discrete choice experiment among HCSWs and the general population in France (quasi-representative sample). The questionnaire was available from January 12 to April 27, 2023, for HCSWs and from April 17 to May 3, 2023, for the general population. BRR is represented as the number of vaccine-prevented disease events for 1 event related to a vaccine side effect. Results are reported in 4 groups: general population sample, non-HCSWs, non–university-degree HCSWs, and university-degree HCSWs. Results Among the 1,869 participants, 1,038 (55.5%) varied their vaccine decision among the different vaccine scenarios. Hypothetical vaccine acceptance among university-degree HCSWs increased when the vaccination BRR was 100:1, while non–university-degree HCSWs and non-HCSWs were more sensitive to qualitative information about the vaccine BRR than quantitative indicators. Among participants in the general population sample with varied decisions, expected acceptance increased by 40% sample if disease risk was high. Among serial vaccine nondemanders, high disease risk decreased their certitude to refuse hypothetical vaccination. Conclusion Our results suggest that only university-degree HCSWs are sensitive to the notion of BRR, but not the general public. Given that previous research found speaking about BRR might reduce vaccine acceptance, this notion should be avoided in vaccine promotion. Highlights The notion of benefit-risk ratio (BRR) of vaccination appears to be taken into account in vaccine decisions by university-degree HCSWs, but not by the general public. Mentioning a favorable BRR could imply that the vaccine is not safe and reduce vaccine motivation. Mentioning qualitative attributes of BRR surrounding disease frequency and severity, and indirect protection effects, strongly affected theoretical vaccine decisions in all participants, irrespective of professional categories. Expected vaccine acceptance increased by 40% among the general population sample if disease risk was presented as high, and expected vaccine coverage exceeded 50% in scenarios with high disease risk. Among those refusing vaccination in all vaccine scenarios, only a high risk of developing the disease decreased their certitude to refuse vaccination. This further underlines the importance of disease risk perception on vaccine decision making, including among persons who a priori are unlikely to accept vaccination.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucia Araujo Chaveron & Jonathan Sicsic & Cyril Olivier & Gerard Pellissier & Elisabeth Bouvet & Judith E. Mueller, 2025. "Communicating on Vaccine Benefit-Risk Ratios: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Health Care Professionals and the General Population in France," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(2), pages 177-191, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:2:p:177-191
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241303876
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241303876
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241303876?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. Regier, Dean A. & Sicsic, Jonathan & Watson, Verity, 2019. "Choice certainty and deliberative thinking in discrete choice experiments. A theoretical and empirical investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 235-255.
    2. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    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. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Howai, Niko & Balcombe, Kelvin & Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z., 2025. "Mangroves and economic development in Tobago: Incorporating payment horizons, choice certainty and ex-post interviews in discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    3. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    4. Saravanamuthu, Kala & Lehman, Cheryl, 2013. "Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 410-437.
    5. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    6. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    7. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    8. Upasna Sharma & Anna Scolobig & Anthony Patt, 2012. "The effects of decentralization on the production and use of risk assessment: insights from landslide management in India and Italy," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 64(2), pages 1357-1371, November.
    9. José Manuel Palma‐Oliveira & Benjamin D. Trump & Matthew D. Wood & Igor Linkov, 2018. "Community‐Driven Hypothesis Testing: A Solution for the Tragedy of the Anticommons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 620-634, March.
    10. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    11. Wheeler, David & MacGregor, Margo & Atherton, Frank & Christmas, Kevin & Dalton, Shawn & Dusseault, Maurice & Gagnon, Graham & Hayes, Brad & MacIntosh, Constance & Mauro, Ian & Ritcey, Ray, 2015. "Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 299-308.
    12. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    13. Anabela Carvalho & Jacquelin Burgess, 2005. "Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1457-1469, December.
    14. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.
    15. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2013. "Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 192-202, February.
    16. Andrea Damm & Katharina Eberhard & Jan Sendzimir & Anthony Patt, 2013. "Perception of landslides risk and responsibility: a case study in eastern Styria, Austria," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(1), pages 165-183, October.
    17. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    18. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    19. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & Ortwin Renn, 1997. "The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 131-136, April.
    20. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk communication between experts and the public: perceptions and intentions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2003:13, Stockholm School of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:2:p:177-191. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.