IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v16y2023i2d10.1007_s40271-022-00602-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does the Public Evaluate Vaccines for Low-Incidence, Severe-Outcome Diseases? A General-Population Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • F. Reed Johnson

    (Duke University)

  • Angelyn Fairchild

    (University of North Carolina)

  • Dale Whittington

    (University of North Carolina
    University of Manchester)

  • Amit K. Srivastava

    (Pfizer Vaccines
    Orbital Therapeutics)

  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez

    (Duke University)

  • Liping Huang

    (Pfizer Inc.)

Abstract

Background Because immunizing large numbers of healthy people could be required to reduce a relatively small number of infections, disease incidence has a large impact on cost effectiveness, even if the infection is associated with very serious health outcomes. In addition to cost effectiveness, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices requires evidence of stakeholders’ values and preferences to help inform vaccine recommendations. This study quantified general-population preferences for vaccine trade-offs among disease severity, disease incidence, and other vaccine features. Methods We developed a best-practice discrete choice experiment survey and administered it to 1185 parents of children aged 12–23 years and 1203 young adults aged 18–25 years from a national opt-in consumer panel. The data were analyzed using exploded-logit latent-class analysis. Results Latent-class analysis identified two classes with similar relative-importance weights in both samples. One of the two classes represented about half the samples and had preferences consistent with well-structured, logically ordered, and acceptably precise stated-preference utility. Preferences for the other half of the samples were poorly defined over the ranges of vaccine and disease attributes evaluated. Both parents and young adults in the first class evaluated protection from a disease with 1 in 100 incidence and full recovery at home as having statistically the same preference utility as a disease with 1 in 1 million incidence requiring hospitalization and resulting in permanent deafness. Conclusions The results suggest that vaccines that protect against low-incidence, severe-outcome diseases, provide ‘peace of mind’ benefits not captured by standard health-outcome metrics. The fact that half the respondents had poorly defined vaccine preferences is a reminder of the challenges of implementing patient-centric vaccine decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • F. Reed Johnson & Angelyn Fairchild & Dale Whittington & Amit K. Srivastava & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Liping Huang, 2023. "How Does the Public Evaluate Vaccines for Low-Incidence, Severe-Outcome Diseases? A General-Population Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(2), pages 139-151, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00602-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00602-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00602-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/s40271-022-00602-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.

    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:16:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00602-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.

    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.