Dataset Information

Quantifying healthcare and welfare sector workers' preferences around COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional, single-profile discrete-choice experiment in France.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To analyse preferences around promotion of COVID-19 vaccination among workers in the healthcare and welfare sector in Fance at the start of the vaccination campaign.

Design

Single-profile discrete-choice experiment. Respondents in three random blocks chose between accepting or rejecting eight hypothetical COVID-19 vaccination scenarios.

Setting

4346 healthcare and welfare sector workers in France, recruited through nation-wide snowball sampling, December 2020 to January 2021.

Outcome

The primary outcomes were the effects of attributes' levels on hypothetical acceptance, expressed as ORs relative to the reference level. The secondary outcome was vaccine eagerness as certainty of decision, ranging from -10 to +10.

Results

Among all participants, 61.1% made uniform decisions, including 17.2% always refusing vaccination across all scenarios (serial non-demanders). Among 1691 respondents making variable decisions, a strong negative impact on acceptance was observed with 50% vaccine efficacy (compared with 90% efficacy: OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.06) and the mention of a positive benefit-risk balance (compared with absence of severe and frequent side effects: OR 0.40, 0.34 to 0.46). The highest positive impact was the prospect of safely meeting older people and contributing to epidemic control (compared with no indirect protection: OR 4.10, 3.49 to 4.82 and 2.87, 2.34 to 3.50, respectively). Predicted acceptance was 93.8% for optimised communication on messenger RNA vaccines and 16.0% for vector-based vaccines recommended to ≥55-year-old persons. Vaccine eagerness among serial non-demanders slightly but significantly increased with the prospect of safely meeting older people and epidemic control and reduced with lower vaccine efficacy.

Discussion

Vaccine promotion towards healthcare and welfare sector workers who hesitate or refuse vaccination should avoid the notion of benefit-risk balance, while collective benefit communication with personal utility can lever acceptance. Vaccines with limited efficacy will unlikely achieve high uptake.

SUBMITTER: Diaz Luevano C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491005 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo understand the key attributes in designing effective interventions for improving healthcare workers' (HCWs') hand hygiene compliance and HCWs' preference for these attributes.DesignA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with five attributes extracted from the framework of Total Quality Management that can be applied in the design of hand hygiene interventions. They were hand hygiene monitoring, open discussion, message framing, resources accessibility and top management involvement. An addition attribute, peer hand hygiene performance, was considered as a contextual factor. Data were analysed by a conditional logit model to evaluate how these attributes impact HCWs' hand hygiene compliance.SettingThe DCE was conducted with participants from a university hospital in Taichung.ParticipantsHCWs involved in daily patient-care activities (N=387).ResultsTo enhance their compliance, HCWs had strong and consistent preferences in having open discussion of hand hygiene problems ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), easy access to hand hygiene resources ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) and top management involvement ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). For hand hygiene monitoring ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), HCWs preferred to be monitored by infection control staff over their department head if their peer hand hygiene performance was low. On the other hand, when the peer performance was high, monitoring by their department head could improve their hand hygiene compliance. Similarly, how educational messages were framed impacted compliance and also depended on the peer hand hygiene performance. When the peer performance was low, HCWs were more likely to increase their compliance in reaction to loss-framed educational messages ([Formula: see text],[Formula: see text]). When the peer performance was high, gain-framed messages that focus on the benefit of compliance were more effective in inducing compliance.ConclusionsEach intervention design has its unique impact on HCWs' hand hygiene compliant behaviour. The proposed approach can be used to evaluate HCWs' preference and compliance of an intervention before it is implemented.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:It is desirable that public preferences are established and incorporated in emergency healthcare reforms. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for local versus centralised provision of all emergency medical services (EMS) and explore what individuals think are important considerations for EMS delivery. DESIGN:A discrete choice experiment was conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were: travel time to the hospital, waiting time to be seen, length of stay in the hospital, risks of dying, readmission and opportunity for outpatient care after emergency treatment at a local hospital. SETTING:North East England. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were a randomly sampled general population, aged 16 years or above recruited from Healthwatch Northumberland network database of lay members and from clinical contact with Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust via Patient Experience Team. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Analysis used logistic regression modelling techniques to determine the preference of each attribute. Marginal rates of substitution between attributes were estimated to understand the trade-offs individuals were willing to make. RESULTS:Responses were obtained from 148 people (62 completed a web and 86 a postal version). Respondents preferred shorter travel time to hospital, shorter waiting time, fewer number of days in hospital, low risk of death, low risk of readmission and outpatient follow-up care in their local hospital. However, individuals were willing to trade off increased travel time and waiting time for high-quality centralised care. Individuals were willing to travel 9 min more for a 1-day reduction in length of stay in the hospital, 38 min for a 1% reduction in risk of death and 112 min for having outpatient follow-up care at their local hospital. CONCLUSIONS:People value centralised EMS if it provides higher quality care and are willing to travel further and wait longer.

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:ObjectivesCT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity.DesignDiscrete choice experiment.SettingOnline, web-based survey.Participants2819 adults (45-54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants.InterventionsAfter receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3-4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps.Primary outcome measuresParticipants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither).ResultsPreparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: -3.834 to -6.346 for preparation, 0.207-0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (-0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362-0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584-0.837).ConclusionsUptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Guidelines underline the role of individual preferences in the selection of a screening test, as insufficient evidence is available to recommend one screening test over another. We conducted a study to determine the preferences of individuals and to predict uptake for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using various screening tests. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was distributed among naive subjects, yet to be screened, and previously screened subjects, aged 50-75 years. Subjects were asked to choose between scenarios on the basis of faecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC) with various test-specific screening intervals and mortality reductions, and no screening (opt-out). RESULTS: In total, 489 out of 1498 (33%) screening-naïve subjects (52% male; mean age+/-s.d. 61+/-7 years) and 545 out of 769 (71%) previously screened subjects (52% male; mean age+/-s.d. 61+/-6 years) returned the questionnaire. The type of screening test, screening interval, and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality influenced subjects' preferences (all P<0.05). Screening-naive and previously screened subjects equally preferred 5-yearly FS and 10-yearly TC (P=0.24; P=0.11), but favoured both strategies to annual FOBT screening (all P-values <0.001) if, based on the literature, realistic risk reduction of CRC-related mortality was applied. Screening-naive and previously screened subjects were willing to undergo a 10-yearly TC instead of a 5-yearly FS to obtain an additional risk reduction of CRC-related mortality of 45% (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: These data provide insight into the extent by which interval and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality affect preferences for CRC screening tests. Assuming realistic test characteristics, subjects in the target population preferred endoscopic screening over FOBT screening, partly, due to the more favourable risk reduction of CRC-related mortality by endoscopy screening. Increasing the knowledge of potential screenees regarding risk reduction by different screening strategies is, therefore, warranted to prevent unrealistic expectations and to optimise informed choice.