Abstract
Background Increased vaccine hesitancy and refusal negatively affects vaccine uptake leading to vaccine preventable disease reemergence. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of characteristics people consider when making vaccine decisions for themselves, or for their child, with specific attention for underlying motives arising from context, such as required effort (accessibility) and opportunism (free riding on herd immunity).
Methods We documented attitudes towards vaccination and performed a discrete choice experiment in 4802 respondents in The United Kingdom, France and Belgium eliciting preferences for six attributes: (1) vaccine effectiveness, (2) vaccine preventable disease burden, (3) vaccine accessibility in terms of co-payment, vaccinator and administrative requirements, (4) frequency of mild vaccine-related side-effects, (5) vaccination coverage in the country’s population and (6) local vaccination coverage in personal networks. We distinguished adults deciding on vaccination for themselves (‘oneself’ group) from parents deciding for their youngest child (‘child’ group).
Results While all six attributes were found to be significant, vaccine effectiveness and accessibility stand out in all (sub)samples, followed by vaccine preventable disease burden. We confirmed that people attach more value to severity of disease compared to its frequency and discovered that peer influence dominates free-rider motives, especially for the vaccination of children.
Conclusions These behavioral data are insightful for policy and are essential to parameterize dynamic vaccination behavior in simulation models. In contrast to what most game theoretical models assume, social norms dominate free-rider incentives. Therefore policy-makers and healthcare workers should actively communicate on high vaccination coverage, and draw attention to the effectiveness of vaccines, while optimizing their practical accessibility.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
FV, PB and LW acknowledge support of the Antwerp Study Centre for Infectious Diseases (ASCID) at the University of Antwerp. FV, LW and RK are supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), FV and LW by project no. G043815N and RK and LW by their postdoctoral fellowship. RK is grateful for further financial support from the JMP Division of SAS Institute (Cary, USA). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The multi-country study protocol as well as the amendments to the country-specific questionnaires (Reference number: 15/2/12) were reviewed and accepted by the Ethical Committee of the Antwerp University Hospital (UZA, Belgium). The study was conducted according to the original approved protocol. Given that this study was non-interventional, and carried out in a general population (adults only) with informed consent, duplicate ethical approval at a local committee was not deemed necessary by our institutional review board. This was confirmed by an NHS Health Research Authority and Medical Research Council tool (UK) as well as by the Comite d'Ethique de Recherche en Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales (France). Participants consented to the study protocol by continuing the questionnaire after the introduction stating the declaration of anonymity and voluntary participation. By continuing the questionnaire participants agreed with the processing and analysis of their data.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The informed consent form specified that survey responses would only be made available and be analyzed by researchers at the University of Antwerp. As such, we cannot make the dataset with survey responses available to third parties.
List of abbreviations
- DCE
- Discrete Choice Experiment
- ECDC
- European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
- EU
- European Union
- FDA
- Food and Drug Administration
- GP
- General Practitioner
- HPV
- Human papillomavirus
- LR
- Likelihood Ratio
- MMR
- Measles – Mumps – Rubella
- PML
- Panel Mixed Logit
- St dev
- Standard deviation
- UK
- United Kingdom
- VRSE
- Vaccine related side-effects
