Adolescent values for immunisation programs in Australia: A discrete choice experiment.

Bing Wang, Gang Chen, Julie Ratcliffe, Hossein Haji Ali Afzali, Lynne Giles, Helen Marshall
Author Information
  1. Bing Wang: The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. ORCID
  2. Gang Chen: Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
  3. Julie Ratcliffe: Institute for Choice, UniSA Business School, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  4. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali: School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  5. Lynne Giles: The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  6. Helen Marshall: The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The importance of adolescent engagement in health decisions and public health programs such as immunisation is becoming increasingly recognised. Understanding adolescent preferences and further identifying barriers and facilitators for immunisation acceptance is critical to the success of adolescent immunisation programs. This study applied a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess vaccination preferences in adolescents.
METHODS: This study was conducted as a cross-sectional, national online survey in Australian adolescents. The DCE survey evaluated adolescent vaccination preferences. Six attributes were assessed including disease severity, target for protection, price, location of vaccination provision, potential side effects and vaccine delivery method. A mixed logit model was used to analyse DCE data.
RESULTS: This survey was conducted between December 2014 and January 2015. Of 800 adolescents aged 15 to 19 years, stronger preferences were observed overall for: vaccination in the case of a life threatening illness (p<0.001), lower price vaccinations (p<0.001), mild but common side effects (p = 0.004), delivery via a skin patch (p<0.001) and being administered by a family practitioner (p<0.001). Participants suggested that they and their families would be willing to pay AU$394.28 (95%CI: AU$348.40 to AU$446.92) more for a vaccine targeting a life threatening illness than a mild-moderate illness, AU$37.94 (95%CI: AU$19.22 to AU$57.39) more for being vaccinated at a family practitioner clinic than a council immunisation clinic, AU$23.01 (95%CI: AU$7.12 to AU$39.24) more for common but mild and resolving side effects compared to rare but serious side effects, and AU$51.80 (95%CI: AU$30.42 to AU$73.70) more for delivery via a skin patch than injection.
CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of adolescent preferences may result in improved acceptance of, engagement in and uptake of immunisation programs targeted for this age group.

References

  1. Health Econ. 2007 Aug;16(8):827-40 [PMID: 17238222]
  2. Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):730-6 [PMID: 22867783]
  3. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012 Aug 1;30(8):713-27 [PMID: 22788261]
  4. Value Health. 2015 Mar;18(2):224-33 [PMID: 25773558]
  5. Vaccine. 2016 Jan 27;34(5):671-7 [PMID: 26740249]
  6. Epilepsy Behav. 2014 Feb;31:102-9 [PMID: 24389020]
  7. Vaccine. 2010 Sep 24;28(41):6692-7 [PMID: 20708696]
  8. Vaccine. 2011 Oct 13;29(44):7651-8 [PMID: 21839793]
  9. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005 Jan-Feb;18(1):13-9 [PMID: 15709059]
  10. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77 [PMID: 18620460]
  11. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(4):1046-56 [PMID: 25764105]
  12. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013 Aug;9(8):1763-73 [PMID: 23584253]
  13. J Paediatr Child Health. 2009 May;45(5):297-303 [PMID: 19493123]
  14. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13 [PMID: 21669364]
  15. Vaccine. 2014 Sep 3;32(39):5071-6 [PMID: 25063570]
  16. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Jan 31;16(1):R36 [PMID: 24479410]
  17. BMC Public Health. 2012 Jul 07;12:509 [PMID: 22768870]
  18. Prev Med. 2013 Mar;56(3-4):202-6 [PMID: 23295175]
  19. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep. 2013 Jun 30;37(2):E156-67 [PMID: 24168090]
  20. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e54149 [PMID: 23408936]
  21. Vaccine. 2011 Jun 15;29(27):4507-11 [PMID: 21527303]
  22. Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):3-13 [PMID: 23337210]
  23. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2011 Feb;50(2):106-13 [PMID: 20837607]
  24. Value Health. 2015 Jan;18(1):67-77 [PMID: 25595236]
  25. Vaccine. 2013 Aug 12;31(36):3712-7 [PMID: 23747452]
  26. Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):457-65 [PMID: 12112494]
  27. Vaccine. 2014 Apr 11;32(18):2042-9 [PMID: 24593997]
  28. BMC Public Health. 2014 May 15;14:454 [PMID: 24885861]
  29. Vaccine. 2012 May 14;30(23):3445-52 [PMID: 22449423]
  30. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005 Feb;159(2):132-7 [PMID: 15699306]
  31. Med Decis Making. 2015 Nov;35(8):948-58 [PMID: 26338176]
  32. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2015 Jul 22;8(1):20 [PMID: 26199734]
  33. J Adolesc Health. 2012 Feb;50(2):198-200 [PMID: 22265117]
  34. PLoS One. 2014 Nov 03;9(11):e111805 [PMID: 25365169]
  35. Vaccine. 2014 Oct 29;32(47):6277-83 [PMID: 25236585]
  36. J Prev Med Hyg. 2011 Jun;52(2):64-72 [PMID: 21842708]
  37. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 19;9(8):e104772 [PMID: 25136919]
  38. Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):300-15 [PMID: 27325321]
  39. Ambul Pediatr. 2008 Mar-Apr;8(2):98-103 [PMID: 18355738]
  40. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2014;24:93-121 [PMID: 25244906]
  41. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 1;12 (3):e0172414 [PMID: 28249046]
  42. PLoS One. 2014 Jul 24;9(7):e102505 [PMID: 25057914]

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Algorithms
Australia
Choice Behavior
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Humans
Immunization
Immunization Programs
Internet
Male
Models, Psychological
Psychology, Adolescent
Surveys and Questionnaires
Vaccination
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0immunisationadolescentpreferencesprogramsvaccinationsideeffectsp<000195%CI:DCEadolescentssurveydeliveryillnessengagementhealthacceptancestudydiscretechoiceexperimentconductedpricevaccinelifethreateningmildcommonviaskinpatchfamilypractitionerclinicOBJECTIVES:importancedecisionspublicbecomingincreasinglyrecognisedUnderstandingidentifyingbarriersfacilitatorscriticalsuccessappliedassessMETHODS:cross-sectionalnationalonlineAustralianevaluatedSixattributesassessedincludingdiseaseseveritytargetprotectionlocationprovisionpotentialmethodmixedlogitmodelusedanalysedataRESULTS:December2014January2015800aged1519yearsstrongerobservedoverallfor:caselowervaccinationsp=0004administeredParticipantssuggestedfamilieswillingpayAU$39428AU$34840AU$44692targetingmild-moderateAU$3794AU$1922AU$5739vaccinatedcouncilAU$2301AU$712AU$3924resolvingcomparedrareseriousAU$5180AU$3042AU$7370injectionCONCLUSIONS:ConsiderationmayresultimproveduptaketargetedagegroupAdolescentvaluesAustralia:

Similar Articles

Cited By