Dataset Information

Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccination can be viewed as comprising the most important defensive barriers to protect susceptible groups from infection. However, vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 is widespread worldwide.

Objective

We aimed to systematically review studies eliciting the COVID-19 vaccine preference using discrete choice experiments.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus platforms in April 2023. Search terms included discrete choice experiments, COVID-19, and vaccines and related synonyms. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed by factors such as high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries and study period (before, during, and after the pandemic wave). Quality appraisal was performed using the 5-item Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance checklist.

Results

The search yield a total of 623 records, and 47 studies with 53 data points were finally included. Attributes were grouped into 4 categories: outcome, process, cost, and others. The vaccine effectiveness (21/53, 40%) and safety (7/53, 13%) were the most frequently reported and important attributes. Subgroup analyses showed that vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute, although the preference varied by subgroups. Compared to high-income countries (3/29, 10%), a higher proportion of low- and middle-income countries (4/24, 17%) prioritized safety. As the pandemic progressed, the duration of protection (2/24, 8%) during the pandemic wave and COVID-19 mortality risk (5/25, 20%) after the pandemic wave emerged as 2 of the most important attributes.

Conclusions

Our review revealed the critical role of vaccine effectiveness and safety in COVID-19 vaccine preference. However, it should be noticed that preference heterogeneity was observed across subpopulations and may change over time.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42023422720; https://tinyurl.com/2etf7ny7.

SUBMITTER: Huang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11319885 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Huang Yiting Y Feng Shuaixin S Zhao Yuyan Y Wang Haode H Jiang Hongbo H

JMIR public health and surveillance 20240729

<h4>Background</h4>Vaccination can be viewed as comprising the most important defensive barriers to protect susceptible groups from infection. However, vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 is widespread worldwide.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to systematically review studies eliciting the COVID-19 vaccine preference using discrete choice experiments.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus platforms in April 2023. Search terms included d ...[more]

PMID: 39073875

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is a key element of health care systems and addresses the main health problems of the population. Due to the demographic change, primary care even gains in importance. The knowledge of the patients' preferences can help policy makers as well as physicians to set priorities in their effort to make health care delivery more responsive to patients' needs. Our objective was to describe which aspects of primary care were included in preference studies and which of them were the most preferred aspects.MethodsIn order to elicit the preferences for primary care, a systematic literature search was conducted. Two researchers searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO) and conducted a narrative synthesis. Inclusion criteria were: focus on primary health care delivery, discrete choice experiment as elicitation method, and studies published between 2006 and 2015 in English language.ResultsWe identified 18 studies that elicited either the patients' or the population's preferences for primary care based on a discrete choice experiment. Altogether the studies used 16 structure attributes, ten process attributes and four outcome attributes. The most commonly applied structure attribute was "Waiting time till appointment", the most frequently used process attribute was "Shared decision making / professional's attention paid to your views". "Receiving the 'best' treatment" was the most commonly applied outcome attribute. Process attributes were most often the ones of highest importance for patients or the population. The attributes and attribute levels used in the discrete choice experiments were identified by literature research, qualitative research, expert interviews, or the analysis of policy documents.ConclusionsThe results of the DCE studies show different preferences for primary health care. The diversity of the results may have several reasons, such as the method of analysis, the selection procedure of the attributes and their levels or the specific research question of the study. As the results of discrete choice experiments depend on many different factors, it is important for a better comprehensibility of the studies to transparently report the steps undertaken in a study as well as the interim results regarding the identification of attributes and levels.

Project description:ObjectivesUnderstanding young people's preferences for healthcare is critical for reducing the negative effect of undesirable choices. This review aims to synthesise the evidence obtained from discrete choice experiments (DCEs) eliciting young people's preferences for healthcare interventions and service deliveries, specifically, to (1) examine the methodology, including a selection of attributes and levels, experimental design, estimation procedure and validity; (2) evaluate similarities, differences and rigour of designs to the general population DCEs; and, (3) compare the DCEs' application to the seven health priority areas defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO).MethodsA systematic review searching Medline, EconLIT, PsychINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed up until May 2021.Inclusion criteriaa DCE, eliciting young peoples' preferences (10-24 years of age), on a healthcare-related topic defined by WHO, peer-reviewed, full-text available in English. A bespoke checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.ResultsEighteen DCE studies were included in the review, exploring interventions and service in sexual and reproductive health (n = 9; 50%), smoking cessation (n = 4; 22%), mental health (n = 1), nutrition (n = 1), unintentional injuries (n = 1), vaccination against severe but rare diseases (n = 1); and diabetes (n = 1). Compared to the general population, DCEs eliciting young people's preferences had a high proportion of monetary measures and a smaller number of choices per respondent with the overwhelming number of surveys using fractional factorial design. The majority of studies were of moderate quality (50-75% of the criteria met).ConclusionsWhile identified DCEs touched on most health priority areas, the scope was limited. The conduct and reporting of DCEs with young people could be improved by including the state-of-the-art design, estimation procedures and analysis.

Project description:BackgroundTargeted pharmacotherapy has been increasingly applied in cancer treatment due to its breakthroughs. However, the unmet needs of cancer patients are still significant, highlighting the urgency to investigate patient preferences. It is unclear how patients deliberate their choices between different aspects of targeted therapy, including cost, efficacy, and adverse events. Since discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely applied to patient preference elicitation, we reviewed DCEs on targeted therapy for different cancers. We also synthesized evidence on the factors influencing patients' choices and their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for survival when treated by targeted therapy.MethodsWe searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, up to August 16, 2022, supplemented by a reference screening. The attributes from the selected studies were categorized into three groups: outcomes, costs, and process. We also calculated the relative importance of attributes and WTP for survival whenever possible. The purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance (PREFS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included DCE studies.ResultsThe review identified 34 eligible studies from 13 countries covering 14 cancers, such as breast, ovarian, kidney, prostate, and skin cancers. It also reveals a rising trend of DCEs on this topic, as most studies were published after 2018. We found that patients placed higher weights on the outcome (e.g., overall survival) and cost attributes than on process attributes. On average, patients were willing to pay $561 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $415-$758) and $716 (95% CI $524-$958) out-of-pocket for a 1-month increase in progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. PREFS scores of the 34 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.38 (SD: 0.65), suggesting a reasonable quality based on the checklist. However, most studies (n = 32, 94%) did not assess the impact of non-responses on the results.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review focusing on patient preferences for targeted cancer therapy. We showcased novel approaches for evidence synthesis of DCE results, especially the attribute relative importance and WTP. The results may inform stakeholders about patient preferences toward targeted therapy and their WTP estimates. More studies with improved study design and quality are warranted to generate more robust evidence to assist decision making.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding service user preferences is key to effective health care decision making and efficient resource allocation. It is of particular importance in the management of high-risk patients in whom predictive genetic testing can alter health outcomes.PurposeThis review aims to identify the relative importance and willingness to pay for attributes of genetic testing in hereditary cancer syndromes.Data sourcesSearches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, and EconLit using discrete choice experiment (DCE) terms combined with terms related to hereditary cancer syndromes, malignancy synonyms, and genetic testing.Study selectionFollowing independent screening by 3 reviewers, 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, being a DCE investigating patient or public preferences related to predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Data extractionExtracted data included study and respondent characteristics, DCE attributes and levels, methods of data analysis and interpretation, and key study findings.Data synthesisStudies covered colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer syndromes. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis and the quality assessed using the Lancsar and Louviere framework.LimitationsThis review focuses only on DCE design and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes rather than other complex diseases. Challenges also arose from heterogeneity in attributes and levels.ConclusionsTest effectiveness and detection rates were consistently important to respondents and thus should be prioritized by policy makers. Accuracy, cost, and wait time, while also important, showed variation between studies, although overall reduction in cost may improve uptake. Patients and the public would be willing to pay for improved detection and clinician over insurance provider involvement. Future studies should seek to contextualize findings by considering the impact of sociodemographic characteristics, health system coverage, and insurance policies on preferences.HighlightsTest effectiveness and detection rates are consistently important to respondents in genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Reducing the cost of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes may improve uptake.Individuals are most willing to pay for a test that improves detection rates, identifies multiple cancers, and for which results are shared with a doctor rather than with an insurance provider.

Project description:BackgroundThis review aimed to 1) identify and assess the quality of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) examining preferences related to epilepsy treatment; 2) summarize the attributes and attribute levels measured in these studies; 3) identify how researchers selected and developed these attributes; and 4) identify which attributes are most important for epilepsy patients.MethodsA systematic literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from database inception to February or April 2022. We included primary discrete-choice experiments eliciting preferences for various attributes of pharmacological and surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with epilepsy or the parents/carers of children with epilepsy. We excluded non- primary studies, studies assessing preferences for nonpharmacological treatment and studies that elicit preferences using methods other than discrete choice experiments. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated checklists. Study characteristics and findings were summarized descriptively.ResultsA total of seven studies were included in the review. The majority of studies explored patients' preferences, and two compared the preferences of patients with physicians. The majority (n = 6) compared two medications, and one compared two surgical options to continuing medication options. The studies examined 44 attributes in total, including side effects (n = 26), efficacy expressed as being seizure free or have fewer seizures (n = 8), costs (n = 3), dosing frequency (n = 3), duration of side effects (n = 2), mortality (n = 1), long-term problems after surgery (n = 1) and surgical options (n = 1). The findings indicate that people with epilepsy have strong preferences for improving seizure control, which was ranked as the top priority in all studies. Patients also have a strong preference for the reduction of adverse effects and may be willing to make trade-offs between improved seizure control and reduction of long-term side effects that may impact their quality of life.ConclusionsThe use of DCEs in measuring patients' preference for epilepsy treatment is accumulating. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details may reduce decision-makers' confidence in the findings. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Project description:IntroductionPrehospital research and evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) have grown in recent decades, yet there is still a paucity of prehospital implementation research. While recent studies have revealed EMS agency leadership perspectives on implementation, the important perspectives and opinions of frontline EMS clinicians regarding implementation have yet to be explored in a systematic approach. The objective of this study was to measure the preferences of EMS clinicians for the process of EBG implementation and whether current agency practices align with those preferences.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional survey of National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians registrants. Eligible participants were certified paramedics who were actively practicing EMS clinicians. The survey contained discrete choice experiments (DCEs) for three EBG implementation scenarios and questions about rank order preferences for various aspects of the implementation process. For the DCEs, we used multinomial logistic regression to analyze the implementation preference choices of EMS clinicians, and latent class analysis to classify respondents into groups by their preferences.ResultsA total of 183 respondents completed the survey. Respondents had a median age of 39 years, were 74.9% male, 89.6% White, and 93.4% of non-Hispanic ethnicity. For all three DCE scenarios, respondents were significantly more likely to choose options with hospital feedback and individual-level feedback from EMS agencies. Respondents were significantly less likely to choose options with email/online only education, no feedback from hospitals, and no EMS agency feedback to clinicians. In general, respondents' preferences favored classroom-based training over in-person simulation. For all DCE questions, most respondents (66.2%-77.1%) preferred their survey DCE choice to their agency's current implementation practices. In the rank order preferences, most participants selected "knowledge of the underlying evidence behind the change" as the most important component of the process of implementation.ConclusionsIn this study of EMS clinicians' implementation preferences using DCEs, respondents preferred in-person education, feedback on hospital outcomes, and feedback on their individual performance. However, current practice at EMS agencies rarely matched those expressed EMS clinician preferences. Collectively, these results present opportunities for improving EMS implementation from the EMS clinician perspective.

Dataset Information

Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets