Parents’ preferences for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus in the Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment

Abstract

BackgroundTo generate knowledge about potential improvements to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination information and organization strategies, we assessed how aspects of HPV vaccination are associated with parents’ preferences for their daughters’ uptake, and which trade-offs parents are willing to make between these aspects.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among parents with a daughter aged 10–12 years. Panel mixed logit regression models were used to determine parents’ preferences for vaccination. Trade-offs were quantified between four vaccination programme aspects: degree of protection against cervical cancer, duration of protection, risk of serious side-effects, and age of vaccination.ResultsTotal response rate was 302/983 (31%). All aspects influenced respondents’ preferences for HPV vaccination (p < 0.05). Respondents preferred vaccination at age 14 years instead of at a younger age. Respondents were willing to trade-off 11% of the degree of protection to obtain life-time protection instead of 25 years. To obtain a vaccination with a risk of serious side-effects of 1/750,000 instead of 1/150,000, respondents were willing to trade-off 21%.ConclusionsUptake may rise if the age ranges for free HPV vaccinations are broadened. Based on the trade-offs parents were willing to make, we conclude that uptake would increase if new evidence indicated outcomes are better than are currently understood, particularly for degree and duration of protection.

Using discrete choice modeling to evaluate the preferences and willingness to pay for leptospirosis vaccine

“…Our results are consistent with the reported responses for other vaccines in the literature, thereby providing evidence of face validity. 16,19,21 Among the leptospirosis vaccine attributes, efficacy had the greatest impact on acceptability. Current leptospirosis vaccines with 70-100% efficacies are more likely to be accepted if introduced in the country.…”

HPV vaccination in a context of public mistrust and uncertainty: a systematic literature review of determinants of HPV vaccine hesitancy in Europe

“…Concerns about the safety of HPV vaccination and potential long-or short-term side effects were reported by an average of 43% of hesitant study participants. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]31,32,[34][35][36][37][38]40,42,46,49,[70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81] Fear of side effects was reported by an average of 52% of general study participants 51,[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97] and 17% of favourable study participants. 25,37,71 Concerns about si...…”

“…Across all studies, an average of 34% of hesitant participants were found to doubt the effectiveness of the vaccine, 23,24,26,32,34,37,[73][74][75]77,114 as well as 39% of general participants 43,46,82,[84][85][86]96 and 3% of favourable participants. 26,37 Perceived low vaccine effectiveness was particularly prevalent among hesitant participants in studies in Spain (2013, 66%), 112 the Netherlands (2009, 57%), 26 and Italy (2006-2014, 37%).…”

“…26,37 Perceived low vaccine effectiveness was particularly prevalent among hesitant participants in studies in Spain (2013, 66%), 112 the Netherlands (2009, 57%), 26 and Italy (2006-2014, 37%). 73,75,114 Additionally, 41% of hesitant study participants 74,112 and 31% of general study participants 84,86,97 doubted the length of protection of the vaccine.…”

No Place Like Home? Disentangling Preferences for HIV Testing Locations and Services Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in China

“…Furthermore, by drawing inferences from individuals’ stated choices, DCEs produce estimates of respondent preferences that are less subject to biases introduced when individuals are asked to explicitly report and assess the motivations underlying their choices [ 15 ]. Within the health services literature, DCEs have been used to elucidate patient preferences ranging from human papillomavirus vaccination among adolescent females [ 16 ] ,to treatment of osteoarthritis among older adults [ 17 ], and linkage to HIV care services among the general population [ 18 ]. However, few DCEs have examined HIV testing preferences in low or middle income countries (LMIC) [ 19 – 23 ] or among MSM.…”