IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i3d10.1007_s40271-021-00508-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

United States COVID-19 Vaccination Preferences (CVP): 2020 Hindsight

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Matthew Craig

    (University of South Florida)

Abstract

Background Shortly after the 2020 US election, initial evidence on first-generation COVID-19 vaccines showed 70–95% efficacy and minimal risks. Yet, many US adults expressed reluctance. Aims The aim of this study was to compare persons willing and unwilling to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to estimate the effects of vaccination attributes on uptake: proof of vaccination, vaccination setting, effectiveness, duration of immunity, and risk of severe side effects. Method Between 9 and 11 November 2020, 1153 US adults completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on Phase 2 of the CDC Vaccination Program (August 2021). Each of its eight choice tasks had three vaccination alternatives and “no vaccination for 6 months.” An opt-out inflated logit model was estimated to test for respondent differences and attribute effects. Results Respondent demographics were unrelated to one’s willingness to be vaccinated (p value 0.533), but those with less education were more likely to be unwilling (p

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Matthew Craig, 2021. "United States COVID-19 Vaccination Preferences (CVP): 2020 Hindsight," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 309-318, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00508-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00508-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00508-0
    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/s40271-021-00508-0?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fanny Velardo & Verity Watson & Pierre Arwidson & François Alla & Stéphane Luchini & Michaël Schwarzinger, 2021. "Regional Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in December 2020: A Natural Experiment in the French Working-Age Population," Post-Print hal-03513452, HAL.
    2. Mouter, Niek & de Ruijter, Annamarie & Ardine de Wit, G. & Lambooij, Mattijs S & van Wijhe, Maarten & van Exel, Job & Kessels, Roselinde, 2022. "“Please, you go first!” preferences for a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    3. Gabin F. Morillon & Thomas G. Poder, 2022. "Public Preferences for a COVID-19 Vaccination Program in Quebec: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, March.
    4. Hess, Stephane & Lancsar, Emily & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Song, Fangqing & van den Broek-Altenburg, Eline & Alaba, Olufunke A. & Amaris, Gloria & Arellana, Julián & Basso, Leonardo J. & Ben, 2022. "The path towards herd immunity: Predicting COVID-19 vaccination uptake through results from a stated choice study across six continents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    5. Rachael L. DiSantostefano & Fern Terris-Prestholt, 2021. "Using Societal Values to Inform Public Health Policy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Health Preference Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 303-307, May.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Applications of discrete choice experiments in COVID-19 research: Disparity in survey qualities between health and transport fields," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).

    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:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00508-0. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.