Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36716030›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

A Discrete Choice Analysis Comparing COVID-19 Vaccination Decisions for Children and Adults.

Lisa A Prosser, Abram L Wagner, Eve Wittenberg, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Angela M Rose, Jamison Pike

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa A ProsserUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Abram L WagnerUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Eve WittenbergHarvard Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brian J Zikmund-FisherUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Angela M RoseUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Jamison PikeCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Joint Initiative in Vaccine Economics, Phase 6U01IP001104 · IP · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI PROSSER, LISA A. · 2018 to 2020
$1.0M
NCIRD CDC HHS U01 IP001104
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: COVID-19 vaccination rates in the US remain below optimal levels. Patient preferences for different attributes of vaccine products and the vaccination experience can be important in determining vaccine uptake decisions. Objective: To assess preferences for attributes of adult and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination among US adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online survey of a national panel of 1040 US adults was conducted in May and June 2021. A discrete choice analysis was used to measure the relative value of each attribute in the decision to choose a COVID-19 vaccination option for adults or children. Six attributes were used to described hypothetical vaccination options: vaccine effectiveness, mild side effects, rare adverse events, number of doses, time required for vaccination, and regulatory approval. Respondents chose between hypothetical vaccination profiles or no vaccination. Additional survey questions asked about vaccination beliefs, COVID-19 illness experience, COVID-19 risk factors, vaccination status, and opinions about the risk of COVID-19. Exposures: Respondents chose which vaccine profile they would prefer to receive for themselves (or no vaccination). Respondents then considered an identical set of profiles for a hypothetical child aged 0 to 17 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative value of vaccination-related attributes were estimated using Bayesian logit regression. Preference profiles for subgroups were estimated using latent class analyses. Results: A total of 1040 adults (610 [59%] female; 379 participants [36%] with an age of 55 years and older years) responded to the survey. When asked about vaccination choices for themselves, participants indicated that vaccine effectiveness (95% vs 60%) was a significant attribute (β, 9.59 [95% CrI, 9.20-10.00] vs β, 0.41 [95% CrI, 0-0.80]). Respondents also preferred fewer rare adverse events (β, 6.35 [95% CrI, 5.74-6.86), fewer mild side effects (β, 5.49; 95% CrI, 5.12-5.87), 1 dose (β, 5.41; 95% CrI, 5.04-5.78), FDA approval (β, 6.01; 95% CrI, 5.64-6.41), and shorter waiting times (β, 5.67; 95% CrI, 4.87-6.48). Results were very similar when framing the question as adult or child vaccination, with slightly stronger preference for fewer rare adverse events for children. Latent class analysis revealed 4 groups of respondents: (1) individuals sensitive to safety and regulatory status, (2) individuals sensitive to convenience, (3) individuals who carefully considered all attributes in making their choices, and (4) individuals who rejected the vaccine. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, the identification of 4 distinct preference groups provides new information to guide communications to support vaccine decision making. In particular, the group that prioritize convenience (less time required for vaccination and fewer doses) may present an opportunity to create actionable strategies to increase vaccination uptake for both adult and pediatric populations.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAdultBayes TheoremChildCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansMaleVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID36716030
PMCPMC9887501
OpenAlexW4318485479

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.