Cargando…

Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND: To optimize the focus of future public information campaigns in The Netherlands promoting the uptake of vaccines among adults and children, we quantified the contribution of several attributes to the vaccination decision. METHOD: We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among Dutc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hoogink, Joram, Verelst, Frederik, Kessels, Roselinde, van Hoek, Albert Jan, Timen, Aura, Willem, Lander, Beutels, Philippe, Wallinga, Jacco, de Wit, G. Ardine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32487041
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08844-w
_version_ 1783541599796461568
author Hoogink, Joram
Verelst, Frederik
Kessels, Roselinde
van Hoek, Albert Jan
Timen, Aura
Willem, Lander
Beutels, Philippe
Wallinga, Jacco
de Wit, G. Ardine
author_facet Hoogink, Joram
Verelst, Frederik
Kessels, Roselinde
van Hoek, Albert Jan
Timen, Aura
Willem, Lander
Beutels, Philippe
Wallinga, Jacco
de Wit, G. Ardine
author_sort Hoogink, Joram
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To optimize the focus of future public information campaigns in The Netherlands promoting the uptake of vaccines among adults and children, we quantified the contribution of several attributes to the vaccination decision. METHOD: We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among Dutch adults including six attributes, i.e. vaccine effectiveness, vaccine-preventable burden of disease (specified in severity and frequency), accessibility of vaccination in terms of co-payment and prescription requirements, frequency of mild side-effects, population-level vaccination coverage and local vaccination coverage among family and friends. Participants answered the DCE from their own perspective (‘oneself’ group) or with regard to a vaccine decision for their youngest child (‘child’ group). The data was analysed by means of panel mixed logit models. RESULTS: We included 1547 adult participants (825 ‘oneself’ and 722 ‘child’). Vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute in the ‘oneself’ group, followed by burden of disease (relative importance (RI) 78%) and accessibility (RI 76%). In the ‘child’ group, burden of disease was most important, but tied closely with vaccine effectiveness (RI 97%). Of less importance was the risk of mild vaccine-related side-effects and both population and local vaccination coverage. Interestingly, participants were more willing to vaccinate when uptake among the population or family and friends was high, indicating that social influence and social norms plays a role. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine effectiveness and disease severity are key attributes in vaccination decision-making for adults making a decision for themselves and for parents who decide for their children. Hence, public information campaigns for both adult and child vaccination should primarily focus on these two attributes. In addition, reinforcing social norms may be considered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7268356
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72683562020-06-07 Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment Hoogink, Joram Verelst, Frederik Kessels, Roselinde van Hoek, Albert Jan Timen, Aura Willem, Lander Beutels, Philippe Wallinga, Jacco de Wit, G. Ardine BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: To optimize the focus of future public information campaigns in The Netherlands promoting the uptake of vaccines among adults and children, we quantified the contribution of several attributes to the vaccination decision. METHOD: We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among Dutch adults including six attributes, i.e. vaccine effectiveness, vaccine-preventable burden of disease (specified in severity and frequency), accessibility of vaccination in terms of co-payment and prescription requirements, frequency of mild side-effects, population-level vaccination coverage and local vaccination coverage among family and friends. Participants answered the DCE from their own perspective (‘oneself’ group) or with regard to a vaccine decision for their youngest child (‘child’ group). The data was analysed by means of panel mixed logit models. RESULTS: We included 1547 adult participants (825 ‘oneself’ and 722 ‘child’). Vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute in the ‘oneself’ group, followed by burden of disease (relative importance (RI) 78%) and accessibility (RI 76%). In the ‘child’ group, burden of disease was most important, but tied closely with vaccine effectiveness (RI 97%). Of less importance was the risk of mild vaccine-related side-effects and both population and local vaccination coverage. Interestingly, participants were more willing to vaccinate when uptake among the population or family and friends was high, indicating that social influence and social norms plays a role. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine effectiveness and disease severity are key attributes in vaccination decision-making for adults making a decision for themselves and for parents who decide for their children. Hence, public information campaigns for both adult and child vaccination should primarily focus on these two attributes. In addition, reinforcing social norms may be considered. BioMed Central 2020-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7268356/ /pubmed/32487041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08844-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hoogink, Joram
Verelst, Frederik
Kessels, Roselinde
van Hoek, Albert Jan
Timen, Aura
Willem, Lander
Beutels, Philippe
Wallinga, Jacco
de Wit, G. Ardine
Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment
title Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment
title_full Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment
title_fullStr Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment
title_full_unstemmed Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment
title_short Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment
title_sort preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one’s child in the netherlands: a discrete choice experiment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32487041
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08844-w
work_keys_str_mv AT hooginkjoram preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT verelstfrederik preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT kesselsroselinde preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT vanhoekalbertjan preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT timenaura preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT willemlander preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT beutelsphilippe preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT wallingajacco preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT dewitgardine preferentialdifferencesinvaccinationdecisionmakingforoneselforoneschildinthenetherlandsadiscretechoiceexperiment