Dataset Information

"Please, you go first!" preferences for a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccination is generally considered the most direct way to restoring normal life after the outbreak of COVID-19, but the available COVID-19 vaccines are simultaneously embraced and dismissed. Mapping factors for vaccine hesitancy may help the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines and provide valuable insights for future pandemics.

Objectives

We investigate how characteristics of a COVID-19 vaccine affect the preferences of adult citizens in the Netherlands to take the vaccine directly, to refuse it outright, or to wait a few months and first look at the experiences of others.

Methods

An online sample of 895 respondents participated between November 4th and November 10th, 2020 in a discrete choice experiment including the attributes: percentage of vaccinated individuals protected against COVID-19, month in which the vaccine would become available and the number of cases of mild and severe side effects. The data was analysed by means of panel mixed logit models.

Results

Respondents found it important that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine becomes available as soon as possible. However, the majority did not want to be the first in line and would rather wait for the experiences of others. The predicted uptake of a vaccine with the optimal combination of attributes was 87%, of whom 55% preferred to take the vaccine after a waiting period. This latter group tends to be lower-educated. Older respondents gave more weight to vaccine effectiveness than younger respondents.

Conclusions

The willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high among adults in the Netherlands, but a considerable proportion prefers to delay their decision to vaccinate until experiences of others are known. Offering this wait-and-see group the opportunity to accept the invitation at a later moment may stimulate vaccination uptake. Our results further suggest that vaccination campaigns targeted at older citizens should focus on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

SUBMITTER: Mouter N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8636308 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used to study preferences and quantify tradeoffs in decision making. It is important to understand how stable their results are.ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent an extreme change in context, the COVID-19 pandemic, affected preferences for vaccine priority setting, as observed in an earlier DCE.MethodsWe replicated a DCE in which participants had to prioritize vaccination programs for public funding. The initial DCE was executed in Flanders (Belgium) right before the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (December 2019, N = 1,636). The replicated DCE was executed 6 months later when the population was in lockdown (April 2020, N = 1,127). A total of 612 respondents participated in both waves of the DCE. We used panel mixed logit models to quantify attribute and level importance and compared utility estimates for consistency.ResultsThe number of vaccine-preventable deaths became less important during the pandemic than before, whereas the influential attributes, the vaccine's contribution to disease eradication and certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important. Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.ConclusionDifferent preferences for vaccine priority setting were observed during the first COVID-19 lockdown as compared with before, although these differences were, given the extreme nature of the changing circumstances, relatively small.HighlightsWe replicated a discrete choice experiment (DCE) about vaccine priority setting during the first COVID-19 lockdown and compared results with those from the original setting.The major attributes, contribution to disease eradication, and scientific certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important than they already were, whereas avoidable mortality became less important.Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.An extreme change in directly related context to the choice assignment led to changes in stated preferences, although these changes were relatively small, given the extreme change in context.Priorities in the second DCE were even less aligned with cost-effectiveness analysis than those observed initially.

Project description:In the last two years, the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a scientific and social challenge worldwide. Vaccines have been the most effective intervention for reducing virus transmission and disease severity. However, virus genetic variants are still circulating among vaccinated individuals with different symptomatology disease cases. Understanding the protective or disease associated mechanisms in vaccinated individuals is relevant to advance in vaccine development and implementation. To address this objective, serum protein profiles were characterized by quantitative proteomics and data analysis algorithms in four cohorts of vaccinated individuals uninfected and SARS-CoV-2 infected with asymptomatic, nonsevere and severe disease symptomatology. The results showed that immunoglobulins were the most overrepresented proteins in infected cohorts when compared to PCR-negative individuals. The immunoglobulin profile varied between different infected cohorts and correlated with protective or disease associated capacity. Overrepresented immunoglobulins in PCR-positive individuals correlated with protective response against SARS-CoV-2, other viruses, and thrombosis in asymptomatic cases. In nonsevere cases, correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 and HBV together with risk of myasthenia gravis and allergy and autoantibodies were observed. Patients with severe symptoms presented risk for allergy, chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and autoantibodies. The analysis of underrepresented immunoglobulins in PCR-positive compared to PCR-negative individuals identified vaccine-induced protective epitopes in various coronavirus proteins including the Spike receptor-binding domain RBD. Non-immunoglobulin proteins were associated with COVID-19 symptoms and biological processes. These results evidence host-associated differences in response to vaccination and the possibility of improving vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2.

Project description:BackgroundHealth campaign interventions, particularly those tailored to the target audience's needs and preferences, can cost-effectively change people's attitudes and behaviors towards better health decision-making. However, there is limited research on how to best tailor seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns for young adults. Vaccination is vital in protecting young adults and their social circles (vulnerable populations like older adults) from the influenza virus and critical in shaping these emerging adults' vaccination habits in the long run. However, amid the prevalence of easily-accessible, attention-grabbing, and often malicious false and misinformation (e.g., COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories), it may be more challenging to develop vaccination messages that resonate with young adults well enough to attract their attention. Therefore, to bridge the research gap, this study examines young adults' preferences for seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns to inform effective intervention design and development.MethodsQualitative survey questions were developed to gauge young adults' preferences for seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns. A total of 545 young adults (73.9% female, Mage = 19.89, SD = 1.44) from a large University offered complete answers to a cross-sectional online survey. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis procedures were adopted to guide the data analysis process.ResultsThematic analysis revealed that young adults prefer seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns that rely on (1) quality and balanced information from (2) credible information sources, positioned in the (3) relevant health contexts, (4) emphasize actionable messages, and incorporate (5) persuasive campaign design. Interestingly, while many participants underscored the importance of fear-appeal messages in persuading them to take health actions, some young adults also suggested avoiding fear campaigns due to discomfort.ConclusionsInsights of the study can inform seasonal influenza vaccination design and development, and have the potential to shed light on vaccination messaging in other vaccine contexts, such as COVID-19 vaccines. Results also underscore the need for health experts and government officials to adopt a more nuanced approach when selecting persuasive campaign appeals. While some young adults may resonate well with fear appeals, others may not. Future research could examine the underlying mechanisms that drive young adults' preference for vaccination campaign intervention to enrich the literature further.