Influenza Vaccination Preferences Among Adults Aged 60 Years and Older in Beijing, China.

IF 11.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mengmeng Jia, Yuxi Liu, Jiarui Zheng, Fenghua Su, Jitao Zhang, Mingyue Jiang, Tongsiman Wang, Xinqi Wang, Tao Wang, Wei Dai, Luzhao Feng
{"title":"Influenza Vaccination Preferences Among Adults Aged 60 Years and Older in Beijing, China.","authors":"Mengmeng Jia, Yuxi Liu, Jiarui Zheng, Fenghua Su, Jitao Zhang, Mingyue Jiang, Tongsiman Wang, Xinqi Wang, Tao Wang, Wei Dai, Luzhao Feng","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.38674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Influenza vaccination coverage among older adults remains suboptimal in China despite free vaccination policies in some regions. Understanding their preferences may inform strategies to improve uptake.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify preferences for influenza vaccination attributes and assess preference heterogeneity by prior influenza vaccination history.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This community-based survey study was conducted at 2 districts in Beijing, China, where influenza vaccination is provided free of charge for adults aged 60 years or older. A convenience sample of adults aged 60 years or older was included from 6 Beijing subdistricts and participated in a discrete choice experiment conducted from August to September 2025.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Stated choice among 2 hypothetical influenza vaccination profiles and an opt-out option. Attributes included vaccine effectiveness, risk of mild adverse effects, vaccination venue and operating hours, outreach method, information source, and message content. Conditional logit, mixed logit, scenario simulations, and vaccination-history interaction analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 514 participants included in the analyses, the median age was 71 years (IQR, 65-79 years), and 356 (69.3%) were women. Higher vaccine effectiveness was associated with greater vaccination preference (β = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.88), whereas higher perceived risk of mild adverse effects was associated with lower preference (β = -5.53; 95% CI, -7.83 to -3.22). Participants preferred community-based vaccination settings, telephone reminders (β = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.36), information from government or community organizations (β = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.02), and messages emphasizing protection of family members (β = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.74). Increasing vaccine effectiveness from 20% to 80% and reducing perceived risk of adverse effects from 20% to 5% were associated with 30.74- and 19.96-percentage-point (pp) increases in the model-estimated choice probability, respectively. Compared with participants with prior vaccination, never-vaccinated participants had a greater preference for opting out (difference in β = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.11 to 2.03), greater sensitivity to mild adverse effect risk (difference in β per 10-pp increase, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.05), and lower responsiveness to vaccine effectiveness (difference in β per 10-pp increase, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this discrete choice experiment of older adults in Beijing, influenza vaccination preferences were associated with vaccine profiles, trusted communication, and community-based service delivery. Prior vaccination history identified differences in benefit-risk weighting that may inform broad and targeted vaccination strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"9 10","pages":"e2638674"},"PeriodicalIF":11.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13659565/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.38674","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Influenza vaccination coverage among older adults remains suboptimal in China despite free vaccination policies in some regions. Understanding their preferences may inform strategies to improve uptake.

Objective: To quantify preferences for influenza vaccination attributes and assess preference heterogeneity by prior influenza vaccination history.

Design, setting, and participants: This community-based survey study was conducted at 2 districts in Beijing, China, where influenza vaccination is provided free of charge for adults aged 60 years or older. A convenience sample of adults aged 60 years or older was included from 6 Beijing subdistricts and participated in a discrete choice experiment conducted from August to September 2025.

Main outcomes and measures: Stated choice among 2 hypothetical influenza vaccination profiles and an opt-out option. Attributes included vaccine effectiveness, risk of mild adverse effects, vaccination venue and operating hours, outreach method, information source, and message content. Conditional logit, mixed logit, scenario simulations, and vaccination-history interaction analyses were performed.

Results: Among 514 participants included in the analyses, the median age was 71 years (IQR, 65-79 years), and 356 (69.3%) were women. Higher vaccine effectiveness was associated with greater vaccination preference (β = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.88), whereas higher perceived risk of mild adverse effects was associated with lower preference (β = -5.53; 95% CI, -7.83 to -3.22). Participants preferred community-based vaccination settings, telephone reminders (β = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.36), information from government or community organizations (β = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.02), and messages emphasizing protection of family members (β = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.74). Increasing vaccine effectiveness from 20% to 80% and reducing perceived risk of adverse effects from 20% to 5% were associated with 30.74- and 19.96-percentage-point (pp) increases in the model-estimated choice probability, respectively. Compared with participants with prior vaccination, never-vaccinated participants had a greater preference for opting out (difference in β = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.11 to 2.03), greater sensitivity to mild adverse effect risk (difference in β per 10-pp increase, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.05), and lower responsiveness to vaccine effectiveness (difference in β per 10-pp increase, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.04).

Conclusions and relevance: In this discrete choice experiment of older adults in Beijing, influenza vaccination preferences were associated with vaccine profiles, trusted communication, and community-based service delivery. Prior vaccination history identified differences in benefit-risk weighting that may inform broad and targeted vaccination strategies.

中国北京60岁及以上成年人的流感疫苗接种偏好
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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书