Mothers' preferences regarding new combination vaccines for their children in Japan, 2014

Abstract

A number of new vaccines to prevent childhood diseases have been introduced globally over the last few decades. Only four combination vaccines are currently available in Japan, DTaP/sIPV, DTaP, DT, and MR, leading to complex infant vaccine scheduling. This study aims to investigate mothers' preferences with respect to combination vaccines for their children, should new combination vaccines become available that have not yet been launched in Japan or that will be developed in the future. We conducted a webbased, cross-sectional survey of 1,243 mothers who had at least one child between 2 months and 3 y of age. Mothers were recruited from an online survey panel of registered users. Their preferences were elicited using discrete choice experiments, the analyzed main effects model, and interactions using a mixed logit model. Mothers showed a preference for vaccines that prevented multiple diseases, had fewer injections per doctor visit, lower price, and lower risk of adverse events. Respondents valued a reduced risk of adverse events the most among all attributes in this study. The estimated monetary value of the willingness to pay for a 1% reduction in the risk of adverse events was < 92,557 ($ 907). Therefore, if new combination vaccines are introduced, the risk of adverse events after vaccination is an especially important factor for mothers. While the safety of the vaccines themselves is required, health professionals should also inform mothers about the benefits and risks of vaccination, to allay mothers' concerns about vaccine safety.

Individual Preferences for Child and Adolescent Vaccine Attributes: A Systematic Review of the Stated Preference Literature

“…Twenty-two (81%) of the included articles were published from 2011 to 2016 , two (7%) were published from 2006 to 2010 [35,36], and three (11%) were published from 2000 to 2005 [37][38][39]. Of the 21 studies, six (29%) were conducted in USA [15, 17-19, 21, 26, 27], five (24%) were conducted in the Netherlands [16, 20-22, 31-34, 36], and two (10%) were conducted in Australia [24,37,38], Japan [29,30], and the UK [13,14,28] each. The remaining studies were conducted in Germany [23,35], France [35], Thailand [25], and Europe [39] (countries not specified).…”

“…Five studies (24%) were related to human papillomavirus [15,16,20,21,25,36], four (19%) were related to influenza [17,18,26,29], and three (14%) were related to meningococcal vaccines [24,27,35]. Three studies (14%) assessed preferences for childhood vaccines in general [13,14,19,30] and two studies (10%) were related to hypothetical vaccines that were either not available on the market or not publicly funded or privately sold in the study context [28,39]. One such study covered vaccines for rotavirus and invasive and non-invasive pneumococcal disease [28] and the other did not specify the specific disease that the vaccine was intended to provide protection against [39].…”

Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments

“…Eight lower-quality studies focused on vaccinees, fifteen on representatives and three on health advisors (Additional file 5 ). In line with the approaches used for high-quality studies, studies targeting health advisors [ 37 , 61 , 70 ] were added to the representatives’ category and outcomes of Verelst, Kessels, Delva, Beutels & Willem [ 73 ] were split (and grouped under vaccinees as well as representatives). As a result, eighteen studies targeted vaccinees and 27 representatives.…”

Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: A systematic review of choice-based experiments

“…cost, time). In the study of Verelst et al [79] vaccine accessibility was for instance uni-dimensional and incorporated not only the availability of vaccines, but also its monetary costs. Therefore, it should be interpreted cautiously.…”

“…Eight lower-quality studies focused on vaccinees, fteen on representatives and three on health advisors (Additional le 5). In line with the approaches used for high-quality studies, studies targeting health advisors were added to the representatives' category and outcomes of Verelst, Kessels, Delva, Beutels & Willem [79] were split (and grouped under vaccinees as well as representatives). As a result, eighteen studies targeted vaccinees and 27 representatives.…”