IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v7y2023i6d10.1007_s41669-023-00442-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade-Offs between Vaccine Effectiveness and Vaccine Safety: Personal versus Policy Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Semra Ozdemir

    (Duke-NUS Medical School
    Duke University)

  • Sean Ng

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Vinh Anh Huynh

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Axel Mühlbacher

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg)

  • Hiang Khoon Tan

    (Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre
    SingHealth Duke NUS Academic Medical Center
    Duke University)

  • Eric Andrew Finkelstein

    (Duke-NUS Medical School
    Duke University)

Abstract

Objective We aimed to investigate whether individuals’ trade-offs between vaccine effectiveness and vaccine safety vary if they are asked to consider the perspective of a policymaker making decisions for others compared with the decisions they would make for themselves. Method A web-enabled discrete choice experiment survey was administered between 1 April and 1 May 2022 to participants recruited from the general population of two Southeast Asian countries (Indonesia and Vietnam). In each country, 500 participants were randomly assigned to make decisions regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for others as a policymaker or in a personal capacity for their own use. Vaccines were characterized by three attributes: (1) effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing infection rate; (2) effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing hospitalization among those infected; and (3) risk of death from vaccine-related serious adverse events. A mixed logit model was utilized for analyses. Results Based on the attributes and levels used in this study, the most important vaccine attribute was the risk of death from vaccine-related adverse events, followed by effectiveness in reducing infection rate and hospitalizations. Compared with personal decisions, the mean probability of choosing a vaccine was (1) lower, and (2) more sensitive to the changes in risk of death from adverse events in policy decisions (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusions and Relevance Our results suggest that, in the face of an infectious disease pandemic, individuals are likely to be more risk-averse to vaccine-related deaths when making decisions for others as a policymaker than they would for themselves.

Suggested Citation

  • Semra Ozdemir & Sean Ng & Vinh Anh Huynh & Axel Mühlbacher & Hiang Khoon Tan & Eric Andrew Finkelstein, 2023. "Trade-Offs between Vaccine Effectiveness and Vaccine Safety: Personal versus Policy Decisions," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(6), pages 915-926, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00442-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00442-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00442-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00442-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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juan Marcos Gonzalez, 2019. "A Guide to Measuring and Interpreting Attribute Importance," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(3), pages 287-295, June.
    2. Eleonore Batteux & Eamonn Ferguson & Richard J Tunney, 2019. "Do our risk preferences change when we make decisions for others? A meta-analysis of self-other differences in decisions involving risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, May.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Juan M. Gonzalez Sepulveda & F. Reed Johnson & Deborah A. Marshall, 2021. "Incomplete information and irrelevant attributes in stated‐preference values for health interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2637-2648, November.
    2. Pakhi Sharma & Sanjeewa Kularatna & Bridget Abell & Steven M. McPhail & Sameera Senanayake, 2024. "Preferences for Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(6), pages 645-662, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    5. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    7. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    8. Ploner, Matteo & Saredi, Viola, 2020. "Exploration and delegation in risky choices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Timothy R. Silberg & Robert B. Richardson & Maria Claudia Lopez, 2020. "Maize farmer preferences for intercropping systems to reduce Striga in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(2), pages 269-283, April.
    10. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    11. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    12. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    13. Biroli, Pietro & Bosworth, Steven J. & Della Giusta, Marina & Di Girolamo, Amalia & Jaworska, Sylvia & Vollen, Jeremy, 2020. "Framing the Predicted Impacts of COVID-19 Prophylactic Measures in Terms of Lives Saved Rather Than Deaths Is More Effective for Older People," IZA Discussion Papers 13753, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    15. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
    16. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    17. Nieboer, Anna P. & Koolman, Xander & Stolk, Elly A., 2010. "Preferences for long-term care services: Willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1317-1325, May.
    18. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    19. Ivan Sever & Miroslav Verbič & Eva Klaric Sever, 2020. "Estimating Attribute-Specific Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Health Care Contingent Valuation Study: A Best–Worst Choice Approach," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 97-107, February.
    20. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Distinguishing between the method and its application," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.

    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:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00442-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.