Dataset Information

Use of a choice survey to identify adult, adolescent and parent preferences for vaccination in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adult and adolescent vaccination rates are far below coverage targets in the United States. Our objective was to identify the most influential factors related to vaccine uptake among adults, adolescents, and parents of adolescents (parents) in the United States.

Methods

We used a fractional factorial design to create a binary choice survey to evaluate preferences for vaccination. The national survey was fielded to a sample of adults, adolescents ages 13-17 years, and parents, using a national probability-based online research panel in November 2015. Respondents were presented with 5 profiles of a hypothetical vaccine and asked in a series of questions whether they would accept each vaccine. We analyzed the binary choice data using logistic regression in STATA v13 (College Station, TX) to calculate the odds that a participant would choose to accept the vaccine.

Results

We received completed responses from 334 (51%) of 652 adults, 316 (21%) of 1516 adolescents, and 339 (33%) of 1030 parents. Respondents were generally representative of the U.S.

Population

Vaccine effectiveness was the most influential factor in the choice to vaccinate for all groups. Other most influential factors were primary care provider (PCP) recommendation and the out-of-pocket cost of the vaccine. Other factors such as risk of illness, risk of vaccine side effects, vaccination location, and time for vaccination were not important in the decision to get vaccinated.

Conclusions

Adults, adolescents, and parents are most sensitive to vaccine effectiveness, PCP recommendation, and out-of-pocket cost for vaccination in their decision to get vaccinated. Strong PCP recommendations that focus on vaccine effectiveness and health care policies that minimize out-of-pocket costs for vaccinations may increase vaccine uptake by adults and adolescents.

SUBMITTER: Lavelle TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6663948 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Choosing hypodontia treatment requires young people and parents to consider a large amount of information, identify what is important to them, and make trade-offs between options. This study aimed to examine young people and parents' preferences for hypodontia treatment using discrete choice experiment (DCE). This was a cross-sectional survey of young people (12-16 y) with hypodontia of any severity, at any stage of treatment, and their parents. Participants were recruited from NHS Hospitals in England and Wales. A bespoke DCE questionnaire was developed to measure preferences for 6 attributes of hypodontia treatment (waiting time, treatment time, problems during treatment, discomfort during treatment, bite, appearance). The questionnaire was completed 1) online by young people and parents, individually or together, and 2) by child-parent dyads under observation. Preferences were analyzed using regression models. In total, 204 participants (122 young people, 56 parents, 26 dyads) completed the online questionnaire and 15 child-parent dyads completed the questionnaire under observation. The most important attribute in hypodontia treatment was improvement in appearance, but significant heterogeneity was found in preferences. Four distinct groups of participants were found: group 1 (39%): severe discomfort and problems were most important; group 2 (31%): most concerned about improvement in appearance of teeth and improvement in bite; group 3 (22%): appearance 3 times more important than any other attribute; and group 4 (9%): preferences difficult to interpret. There was variation in how child-parent dyads approached decision-making, with some negotiating joint preferences, while for others, one individual dominated. Making trade-offs in DCE tasks helped some people think about treatment and identify their preferences. Appearance is an important outcome from hypodontia treatment, but preferences vary and potential risks and functional outcome are also important to some people. There is a notable level of uncertainty in decision-making, which suggests further shared decision support would be valuable.

Project description:ImportanceAdolescent access to firearms increases their risk of firearm injury.ObjectiveTo examine adolescent firearm access in homes with guns, how storage may modify access, and discordance between parent and adolescent report of access.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used data on parents and their adolescent children from a nationally representative online survey of adults in gun-owning households, conducted from June 30 to August 11, 2019. Individuals who owned firearms and parents of adolescents were oversampled. All parents living with a child aged 13 to 17 years were invited to have their child participate in a separate survey. Respondents with more than 1 adolescent living with them were asked to choose the child with the most recent birthday. Analyses were conducted from June 1, 2020, to January 4, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresFirearm access was assessed by asking adolescents how long it would take to access a loaded gun in their home. Parents were asked whether their child could independently access a household firearm. Individuals who owned guns reported firearm storage practices. Study-specific poststratification weights adjusted for survey nonresponse and undercoverage or overcoverage resulting from the study-specific sample design and for benchmark demographic distributions.ResultsOf 6721 adults invited to participate, 4030 completed the survey. Of these, 280 had a firearm in their homes and had a child aged 13 to 17 years who participated in the survey. The mean (SD) age of parents was 45.2 (7.2) years; of children, 15.0 (1.4) years. The sample included 159 male adolescents (weighted percentage, 60.8%; 95% CI, 53.8%-67.8%) and 129 male adults (weighted percentage, 48.3%; 95% CI, 40.9%-55.6%). In 33.9% (95% CI, 26.7%-41.2%) of households, an adolescent reported that they could access a loaded firearm in less than 5 minutes. In homes where all guns were locked, 23.7% (95% CI, 12.3%-35.1%) of adolescents reported that they could access a loaded firearm in less than 5 minutes. Overall, 70.4% (95% CI, 63.7%-77.1%) of parents reported that their child could not access a household firearm. In households where parents said their child could not access a firearm, 21.8% (95% CI 13.8%-29.7%) of their children indicated that they could access a firearm within 5 minutes and 14.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-20.9%) indicated that they could access a firearm in more than 5 minutes but less than 1 hour.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, many adolescents reported having ready access to loaded guns in their homes, even when all household firearms were locked. Many adolescents who reported having access to household firearms lived with parents who knew their children had access, but others lived with parents who did not know. These finding should inform prevention efforts aimed at reducing adolescent access to household firearms.

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to develop and test a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey to elicit adolescent and parent preferences for dental care for hypodontia (a developmental condition where one or more teeth fail to develop).MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study. Participants were adolescents (aged 12-16 years) with hypodontia and their parents and the dentists providing hypodontia care. Stage one entailed attribute development, as follows. (1) Attribute identification: systematic review of hypodontia literature; interviews with adolescents with hypodontia (n = 8) and parents (n = 8); observation of hypodontia clinical consultations (n = 5); environmental scan of hypodontia patient information resources (n = 30); and systematic analysis of social media posts (n = 176). (2) Attribute selection: stakeholder consultation to develop items for a questionnaire; rating and ranking questionnaire for adolescents with hypodontia and parents (n = 18); further stakeholder consultation. Stage two involved the development of the DCE survey, and stage three included the pre-testing using cognitive interviews with adolescents (n = 12) and parents (n = 8) to assess face and content validity.ResultsThe attribute long list included 27 attributes focusing on service delivery and treatment outcome, from which seven 'important' attributes were selected for pre-testing. Cognitive interviewing suggested adolescents found the DCE choice tasks challenging to understand; the survey was modified to enhance its acceptability. One attribute was excluded as it showed poor validity with adolescents. Pre-testing suggested DCE choice tasks encouraged thinking and discussion about preferences for treatment.ConclusionsIncluding the target respondent group in all stages of DCE development ensured the final DCE survey was valid and acceptable. DCE methods appear to be a useful tool for exploring joint decision making alongside conventional preference elicitation.