IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i3d10.1007_s40271-024-00677-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Qualitative Research to Quantitative Preference Elicitation: An Example in Invasive Meningococcal Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Coulter

    (Pfizer)

  • Chiara Whichello

    (Evidera)

  • Sebastian Heidenreich

    (Evidera)

  • Brett Hauber

    (Pfizer)

  • Christine Michaels-Igbokwe

    (Evidera)

  • Joseph C. Cappelleri

    (Pfizer)

  • Paula Peyrani

    (Pfizer)

  • Jessica Vespa Presa

    (Pfizer)

  • Malavika Venkatraman

    (Evidera)

  • Katharina Schley

    (Pfizer Pharma GmbH)

Abstract

Background Qualitative research is fundamental for designing discrete choice experiments (DCEs) but is often underreported in the preference literature. We developed a DCE to elicit preferences for vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) among adolescents and young people (AYP) and parents and legal guardians (PLG) in the United States. This article reports the targeted literature review and qualitative interviews that informed the DCE design and demonstrates how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies. Methods This study included two parts: a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews. The Medline and Embase databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies on IMD and immunization. The results of the targeted literature review informed a qualitative interview guide. Sixty-minute, online, semi-structured interviews with AYP and PLG were used to identify themes related to willingness to be vaccinated against IMD. Participants were recruited through a third-party recruiter’s database and commercial online panels. Interviews included vignettes about IMD and vaccinations and three thresholding exercises examining the effect of incidence rate, disability rate, and fatality rate on vaccination preferences. Participant responses related to the themes were counted. Results The targeted literature review identified 31 concepts that were synthesized into six topics for the qualitative interviews. Twenty AYP aged 16–23 years and 20 PLG of adolescents aged 11–17 years were interviewed. Four themes related to willingness to be vaccinated emerged: attitudes towards vaccination, knowledge and information, perception of IMD, and vaccine attributes. Most participants were concerned about IMD (AYP 60%; PLG 85%) and had positive views of vaccination (AYP 80%; PLG 60%). Ninety percent of AYP and 75% of PLG always chose vaccination over no vaccination, independent of IMD incidence rate, disability rate, or fatality rate. Conclusion Willingness to be vaccinated against IMD was affected by vaccine attributes but largely insensitive to IMD incidence and severity. This article provides an example of how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies, with 21 out of 22 items in the guidelines being considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Coulter & Chiara Whichello & Sebastian Heidenreich & Brett Hauber & Christine Michaels-Igbokwe & Joseph C. Cappelleri & Paula Peyrani & Jessica Vespa Presa & Malavika Venkatraman & Katharina Sc, 2024. "From Qualitative Research to Quantitative Preference Elicitation: An Example in Invasive Meningococcal Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(3), pages 319-333, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00677-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00677-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00677-8
    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/s40271-024-00677-8?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:17:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00677-8. 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.