How Does the Public Evaluate Vaccines for Low-Incidence, Severe-Outcome Diseases? A General-Population Choice Experiment

F. Reed Johnson (), Angelyn Fairchild, Dale Whittington, Amit K. Srivastava, Juan Marcos Gonzalez and Liping Huang
Additional contact information
F. Reed Johnson: Duke University
Angelyn Fairchild: University of North Carolina
Dale Whittington: University of North Carolina
Amit K. Srivastava: Pfizer Vaccines
Juan Marcos Gonzalez: Duke University
Liping Huang: Pfizer Inc.

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2023, vol. 16, issue 2, No 6, 139-151

Abstract: Abstract Background Because immunizing large numbers of healthy people could be required to reduce a relatively small number of infections, disease incidence has a large impact on cost effectiveness, even if the infection is associated with very serious health outcomes. In addition to cost effectiveness, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices requires evidence of stakeholders’ values and preferences to help inform vaccine recommendations. This study quantified general-population preferences for vaccine trade-offs among disease severity, disease incidence, and other vaccine features. Methods We developed a best-practice discrete choice experiment survey and administered it to 1185 parents of children aged 12–23 years and 1203 young adults aged 18–25 years from a national opt-in consumer panel. The data were analyzed using exploded-logit latent-class analysis. Results Latent-class analysis identified two classes with similar relative-importance weights in both samples. One of the two classes represented about half the samples and had preferences consistent with well-structured, logically ordered, and acceptably precise stated-preference utility. Preferences for the other half of the samples were poorly defined over the ranges of vaccine and disease attributes evaluated. Both parents and young adults in the first class evaluated protection from a disease with 1 in 100 incidence and full recovery at home as having statistically the same preference utility as a disease with 1 in 1 million incidence requiring hospitalization and resulting in permanent deafness. Conclusions The results suggest that vaccines that protect against low-incidence, severe-outcome diseases, provide ‘peace of mind’ benefits not captured by standard health-outcome metrics. The fact that half the respondents had poorly defined vaccine preferences is a reminder of the challenges of implementing patient-centric vaccine decision making.

Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00602-x Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00602-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00602-x

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().