Communicating on Vaccine Benefit-Risk Ratios: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Health Care Professionals and the General Population in France.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1177/0272989X241303876
Lucia Araujo Chaveron, Jonathan Sicsic, Cyril Olivier, Gerard Pellissier, Elisabeth Bouvet, Judith E Mueller
{"title":"Communicating on Vaccine Benefit-Risk Ratios: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Health Care Professionals and the General Population in France.","authors":"Lucia Araujo Chaveron, Jonathan Sicsic, Cyril Olivier, Gerard Pellissier, Elisabeth Bouvet, Judith E Mueller","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241303876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We explored preferences around the benefit-risk ratio (BRR) of vaccination among the general adult population and health care sector workers (HCSWs). We estimated preference weights and expected vaccine uptake for different BRR levels for a vaccine recommended during an infectious disease emergence. In addition, we explored how far qualitative information about disease severity, epidemiological context, and indirect protection interacts with these preferences.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study, using a self-administered online questionnaire containing a single-profile discrete choice experiment among HCSWs and the general population in France (quasi-representative sample). The questionnaire was available from January 12 to April 27, 2023, for HCSWs and from April 17 to May 3, 2023, for the general population. BRR is represented as the number of vaccine-prevented disease events for 1 event related to a vaccine side effect. Results are reported in 4 groups: general population sample, non-HCSWs, non-university-degree HCSWs, and university-degree HCSWs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 1,869 participants, 1,038 (55.5%) varied their vaccine decision among the different vaccine scenarios. Hypothetical vaccine acceptance among university-degree HCSWs increased when the vaccination BRR was 100:1, while non-university-degree HCSWs and non-HCSWs were more sensitive to qualitative information about the vaccine BRR than quantitative indicators. Among participants in the general population sample with varied decisions, expected acceptance increased by 40% sample if disease risk was high. Among serial vaccine nondemanders, high disease risk decreased their certitude to refuse hypothetical vaccination.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that only university-degree HCSWs are sensitive to the notion of BRR, but not the general public. Given that previous research found speaking about BRR might reduce vaccine acceptance, this notion should be avoided in vaccine promotion.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>The notion of benefit-risk ratio (BRR) of vaccination appears to be taken into account in vaccine decisions by university-degree HCSWs, but not by the general public. Mentioning a favorable BRR could imply that the vaccine is not safe and reduce vaccine motivation.Mentioning qualitative attributes of BRR surrounding disease frequency and severity, and indirect protection effects, strongly affected theoretical vaccine decisions in all participants, irrespective of professional categories.Expected vaccine acceptance increased by 40% among the general population sample if disease risk was presented as high, and expected vaccine coverage exceeded 50% in scenarios with high disease risk.Among those refusing vaccination in all vaccine scenarios, only a high risk of developing the disease decreased their certitude to refuse vaccination. This further underlines the importance of disease risk perception on vaccine decision making, including among persons who a priori are unlikely to accept vaccination.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"177-191"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241303876","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We explored preferences around the benefit-risk ratio (BRR) of vaccination among the general adult population and health care sector workers (HCSWs). We estimated preference weights and expected vaccine uptake for different BRR levels for a vaccine recommended during an infectious disease emergence. In addition, we explored how far qualitative information about disease severity, epidemiological context, and indirect protection interacts with these preferences.

Methodology: This was a cross-sectional study, using a self-administered online questionnaire containing a single-profile discrete choice experiment among HCSWs and the general population in France (quasi-representative sample). The questionnaire was available from January 12 to April 27, 2023, for HCSWs and from April 17 to May 3, 2023, for the general population. BRR is represented as the number of vaccine-prevented disease events for 1 event related to a vaccine side effect. Results are reported in 4 groups: general population sample, non-HCSWs, non-university-degree HCSWs, and university-degree HCSWs.

Results: Among the 1,869 participants, 1,038 (55.5%) varied their vaccine decision among the different vaccine scenarios. Hypothetical vaccine acceptance among university-degree HCSWs increased when the vaccination BRR was 100:1, while non-university-degree HCSWs and non-HCSWs were more sensitive to qualitative information about the vaccine BRR than quantitative indicators. Among participants in the general population sample with varied decisions, expected acceptance increased by 40% sample if disease risk was high. Among serial vaccine nondemanders, high disease risk decreased their certitude to refuse hypothetical vaccination.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that only university-degree HCSWs are sensitive to the notion of BRR, but not the general public. Given that previous research found speaking about BRR might reduce vaccine acceptance, this notion should be avoided in vaccine promotion.

Highlights: The notion of benefit-risk ratio (BRR) of vaccination appears to be taken into account in vaccine decisions by university-degree HCSWs, but not by the general public. Mentioning a favorable BRR could imply that the vaccine is not safe and reduce vaccine motivation.Mentioning qualitative attributes of BRR surrounding disease frequency and severity, and indirect protection effects, strongly affected theoretical vaccine decisions in all participants, irrespective of professional categories.Expected vaccine acceptance increased by 40% among the general population sample if disease risk was presented as high, and expected vaccine coverage exceeded 50% in scenarios with high disease risk.Among those refusing vaccination in all vaccine scenarios, only a high risk of developing the disease decreased their certitude to refuse vaccination. This further underlines the importance of disease risk perception on vaccine decision making, including among persons who a priori are unlikely to accept vaccination.

疫苗效益风险比的宣传:法国医护人员和普通民众的离散选择实验。
背景:我们探讨了一般成年人和卫生保健部门工作人员(HCSWs)对疫苗接种的收益风险比(BRR)的偏好。我们估计了在传染病出现期间推荐的疫苗在不同BRR水平下的偏好权重和预期疫苗摄取。此外,我们探讨了关于疾病严重程度、流行病学背景和间接保护的定性信息与这些偏好的相互作用程度。方法:这是一项横断面研究,使用一份自我管理的在线问卷,其中包含在法国hcsw和一般人群(准代表性样本)中进行的单一侧面离散选择实验。调查问卷于2023年1月12日至4月27日发放,普通人群于2023年4月17日至5月3日发放。BRR表示为与疫苗副作用相关的1个事件中疫苗可预防的疾病事件的数量。结果分为四组:普通人群样本、非hcsw、非大学学位hcsw和大学学位hcsw。结果:在1869名参与者中,1038名(55.5%)在不同的疫苗方案中改变了他们的疫苗决策。当疫苗接种BRR为100:1时,大学学历的hcsw的假设疫苗接受度增加,而非大学学历的hcsw和非hcsw对疫苗BRR的定性信息比定量指标更敏感。在具有不同决策的一般人群样本中,如果疾病风险较高,预期接受度增加40%。在连续无疫苗需求者中,高疾病风险降低了他们拒绝假设疫苗接种的确定性。结论:我们的研究结果表明,只有大学学历的hcsw对BRR的概念敏感,而普通公众不敏感。鉴于先前的研究发现,谈论BRR可能会降低疫苗的接受度,在疫苗推广中应避免这种观念。重点:疫苗接种的获益风险比(BRR)的概念似乎被大学学位的HCSWs考虑在疫苗决策中,但不被普通公众考虑。提到有利的BRR可能意味着疫苗不安全,降低了接种动机。提及BRR有关疾病频率和严重程度的定性属性,以及间接保护作用,强烈影响了所有参与者的理论疫苗决策,无论专业类别如何。如果疾病风险高,一般人群样本的预期疫苗接受度增加40%,在疾病风险高的情况下,预期疫苗覆盖率超过50%。在所有疫苗接种情况下拒绝接种疫苗的人中,只有患疾病的高风险降低了他们拒绝接种疫苗的确定性。这进一步强调了疾病风险认知对疫苗决策的重要性,包括那些先天不太可能接受疫苗接种的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信