Parental preferences for rotavirus vaccination in young children: A discrete choice experiment

Vaccine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (47) ◽  
pp. 6277-6283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorien Veldwijk ◽  
Mattijs S. Lambooij ◽  
Patricia C.J. Bruijning-Verhagen ◽  
Henriette A. Smit ◽  
G. Ardine de Wit
2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. A362
Author(s):  
J. Veldwijk ◽  
M.S. Lambooij ◽  
P.C.J. Bruijning-Verhagen ◽  
H.A. Smit ◽  
G.A. de Wit

Vaccine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (52) ◽  
pp. 8310-8317
Author(s):  
Shan Zhu ◽  
Jie Chang ◽  
Khezar Hayat ◽  
Pengchao Li ◽  
Wenjing Ji ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan A Lewis ◽  
Alex Stine ◽  
Ryan S Paquin ◽  
Carol Mansfield ◽  
Dallas Wood ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise E Smith ◽  
Ben Carter

Background: Mandatory vaccination has been mooted to combat falling childhood vaccine uptake rates in England. This study investigated parental preferences for a mandatory vaccination scheme. Methods: Discrete choice experiment. Six attributes were investigated: vaccine (MMR, 6-in-1), child age group (2 years and older, 5 years and older), incentive (130 GBP cash incentive for parent, 130 GBP voucher incentive for child, no incentive), penalty (450 GBP fine, parent not able to claim Child Benefits for an unvaccinated child, unvaccinated child not able to attend school or day care), ability to opt out (medical exemption only, medical and religious belief exemption), and compensation scheme (not offered, offered). Mixed effects conditional logit regression models were used to investigate parental preferences and relative importance of attributes. Findings: Participants were 1,001 parents of children aged 5 years and under (53% female, mean age=33.6 years, SD=7.1, 84% white British). Parental preferences were mostly based on incentives (slight preference for cash pay-out for the parent versus a voucher for the child) and penalties (preference for schemes that did not allow unvaccinated children to attend school or day care and those that withheld financial benefits for parents of unvaccinated children). Parents also preferred schemes that: offered a compensation scheme, mandated the 6-in-1 vaccine, mandated vaccination in children aged 2 years and older, and that offered only medical exemptions. Interpretation: Results can inform policymakers' decisions about how best to implement a mandatory childhood vaccination scheme in England. Funding: Data collection was funded by a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grants (SRG1920\101118).


2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (7) ◽  
pp. 1243-1260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Roach ◽  
Bruce K. Christensen ◽  
Elizabeth Rieger

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Peters ◽  
E van Grinsven ◽  
M van de Haterd ◽  
D van Lankveld ◽  
J Verbakel ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel C. Mühlbacher ◽  
John F. P. Bridges ◽  
Susanne Bethge ◽  
Ch.-Markos Dintsios ◽  
Anja Schwalm ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1357633X2110228
Author(s):  
Centaine L Snoswell ◽  
Anthony C Smith ◽  
Matthew Page ◽  
Liam J Caffery

Introduction Telehealth has been shown to improve access to care, reduce personal expenses and reduce the need for travel. Despite these benefits, patients may be less inclined to seek a telehealth service, if they consider it inferior to an in-person encounter. The aims of this study were to identify patient preferences for attributes of a healthcare service and to quantify the value of these attributes. Methods We surveyed patients who had taken an outpatient telehealth consult in the previous year using a survey that included a discrete choice experiment. We investigated patient preferences for attributes of healthcare delivery and their willingness to pay for out-of-pocket costs. Results Patients ( n = 62) preferred to have a consultation, regardless of type, than no consultation at all. Patients preferred healthcare services with lower out-of-pocket costs, higher levels of perceived benefit and less time away from usual activities ( p < 0.008). Most patients preferred specialist care over in-person general practitioner care. Their order of preference to obtain specialist care was a videoconsultation into the patient’s local general practitioner practice or hospital ( p < 0.003), a videoconsultation into the home, and finally travelling for in-person appointment. Patients were willing to pay out-of-pocket costs for attributes they valued: to be seen by a specialist over videoconference ($129) and to reduce time away from usual activities ($160). Conclusion Patients value specialist care, lower out-of-pocket costs and less time away from usual activities. Telehealth is more likely than in-person care to cater to these preferences in many instances.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document