IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v18y2025i5d10.1007_s40271-025-00753-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations

Author

Listed:
  • Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter

    (Maastricht University)

  • Nadja Kairies-Schwarz

    (Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf
    German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research)

  • Charlotte Beaudart

    (University of Namur, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Unit, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences (NARILIS))

  • Jonathan Douxfils

    (University of Namur, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Unit, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences (NARILIS)
    QUALIblood s.a.
    CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Hôpital Estaing)

  • Dweeti Nayak

    (PRECISIONheor)

  • Mickaël Hiligsmann

    (Maastricht University)

Abstract

Background and Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced vaccination strategies and public health policies. Discrete choice experiments have emerged as a valuable tool for understanding preferences regarding vaccination. This study systematically reviews discrete choice experiments conducted on COVID-19 public vaccination preferences to identify key determinants influencing vaccine uptake and to assess methodological approaches used in these studies. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted across major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify discrete choice experiments focusing on COVID-19 vaccination preferences up to 31 December, 2024. Attribute categorization into five dimensions Outcome, Process, Cost, Trust, and Framing was performed and quality appraised according to the DIRECT checklist. Conditional relative importance as well as geographical differences were assessed. Results The review identified 58 studies employing discrete choice experiments that assessed public COVID-19 vaccine preferences. Among attribute categories, outcome-related factors were the most frequently used and had the highest relative importance. Other commonly evaluated attributes included cost, origin/brand, and required doses. A notable geographic disparity was observed, with studies being unevenly distributed across different regions. Methodological heterogeneity was observed in attribute selection and experimental design. Conclusions This review emphasizes the importance of considering individual preferences into vaccination strategies to enhance uptake, particularly in preparation for future pandemics. The findings reveal that vaccine effectiveness and safety are key concerns for individuals. Future research could focus on increasing representation of underexamined regions in preference studies to better inform local policymakers in developing effective vaccination programs for future health crises. Clinical Trial Registration This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with the ID CRD42025543234.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter & Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Charlotte Beaudart & Jonathan Douxfils & Dweeti Nayak & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2025. "A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(5), pages 461-480, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-025-00753-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-025-00753-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-025-00753-7
    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/s40271-025-00753-7?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

    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:18:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-025-00753-7. 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.