IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v10y2017i6d10.1007_s40271-017-0244-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual Preferences for Child and Adolescent Vaccine Attributes: A Systematic Review of the Stated Preference Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Michaels-Igbokwe

    (University of Calgary)

  • Shannon MacDonald

    (University of Alberta
    University of Calgary)

  • Gillian R. Currie

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

Background Discrete choice experiments are increasingly used to assess preferences for vaccines and vaccine service delivery. Objectives To synthesize and critically assess the application of discrete choice experiments in childhood/adolescent vaccines, to describe how discrete choice experiments have been applied to understand preferences, and to evaluate the use of discrete choice experiment data to inform estimates of vaccine uptake. Methods We conducted a systematic review of six electronic databases. Included studies were discrete choice experiments and conjoint analyses published from 2000 to 2016 related to childhood/adolescent vaccines where respondents were parents, children/adolescents, or service providers. Validity assessment was used to assess study quality and risk of bias. Results In total, 27 articles were included, representing 21 different studies. A majority of articles were published between 2011 and 2016. Vaccines studied included human papillomavirus (24%), influenza (19%), meningococcal vaccines (14%), childhood vaccines (14%), hypothetical vaccines (10%), hepatitis B (5%), and diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (5%). Most studies assessed parent preferences (67%). The most common attributes were risk (24%), degree/duration of protection (21%), and cost (15%). Commonly reported outcome measures were estimates of uptake (33%), willingness-to-pay (22%), and other marginal rates of substitution (14%). Validity assessments yielded high scores overall. Areas of weakness included low response rates, inefficient experimental design, and failure to conduct formative qualitative work and a pilot of the discrete choice experiment. Conclusion This is the first systematic review of childhood/adolescent vaccine-related discrete choice experiments. In future, special attention should be paid to ensuring that choice context and discrete choice experiment design are compatible to generate reliable estimates of uptake.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Michaels-Igbokwe & Shannon MacDonald & Gillian R. Currie, 2017. "Individual Preferences for Child and Adolescent Vaccine Attributes: A Systematic Review of the Stated Preference Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 687-700, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0244-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0244-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0244-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-017-0244-x?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. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Minghuan Jiang & Yilin Gong & Yu Fang & Xuelin Yao & Liuxin Feng & Shan Zhu & Jin Peng & Xinke Shi, 2022. "Parental Preferences of Influenza Vaccination for Children in China: A National Survey with a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Luyten, Jeroen & Beutels, Philippe & Vandermeulen, Corinne & Kessels, Roselinde, 2022. "Social preferences for adopting new vaccines in the national immunization program: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    3. Christine Michaels-Igbokwe & Gillian R. Currie & Bryanne L. Kennedy & Karen V. MacDonald & Deborah A. Marshall, 2021. "Methods for Conducting Stated Preference Research with Children and Adolescents in Health: A Scoping Review of the Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 741-758, November.
    4. Gemma Lasseter & Hareth Al-Janabi & Caroline L Trotter & Fran E Carroll & Hannah Christensen, 2018. "The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    5. William F. Vásquez & Jennifer M. Trudeau & Jessica Alicea‐Planas, 2021. "Immediate and informative feedback during a pandemic: Using stated preference analysis to predict vaccine uptake rates," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3123-3137, December.
    6. 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.

    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. Elisabeth M. Schaffer & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Stephanie B. Wheeler & Dalsone Kwarisiima & Gabriel Chamie & Harsha Thirumurthy, 2020. "Promoting HIV Testing by Men: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Preferences and Predict Uptake of Community-based Testing in Uganda," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 413-432, June.
    2. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. 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.
    5. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    6. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    7. Qian, Lixian & Grisolía, Jose M. & Soopramanien, Didier, 2019. "The impact of service and government-policy attributes on consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 70-84.
    8. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    9. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Climate-Friendly Food in European Countries," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276930, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. 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.
    11. Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Jorien Veldwijk & Marcel F. Jonker & Sylvia Buis & Jan Huisman & Patrick Bindels, 2021. "What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 269-281, March.
    12. Jaewoong Yun, 2023. "Strategies for Improving the Sustainability of Fare-Free Policy for the Elderly through Preferences by Travel Modes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-14, October.
    13. de Jong, Gerard & Kouwenhoven, Marco & Ruijs, Kim & van Houwe, Pieter & Borremans, Dana, 2016. "A time-period choice model for road freight transport in Flanders based on stated preference data," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 20-31.
    14. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    15. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    16. Minhaj Mahmud & Italo A Gutierrez & Krishna B Kumar & Shanthi Nataraj, 2021. "What Aspects of Formality Do Workers Value? Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Bangladesh," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(2), pages 303-327.
    17. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    18. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    19. Gustavo García-Melero & Rubén Sainz-González & Pablo Coto-Millán & Alejandra Valencia-Vásquez, 2021. "Sustainable Mobility Policy Analysis Using Hybrid Choice Models: Is It the Right Choice?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0244-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.