COVID-19疫苗接种偏好离散选择实验的系统综述

IF 3.4 3区医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-07-10 DOI:10.1007/s40271-025-00753-7

Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Charlotte Beaudart, Jonathan Douxfils, Dweeti Nayak, Mickaël Hiligsmann

{"title":"COVID-19疫苗接种偏好离散选择实验的系统综述","authors":"Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Charlotte Beaudart, Jonathan Douxfils, Dweeti Nayak, Mickaël Hiligsmann","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00753-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced vaccination strategies and public health policies. Discrete choice experiments have emerged as a valuable tool for understanding preferences regarding vaccination. This study systematically reviews discrete choice experiments conducted on COVID-19 public vaccination preferences to identify key determinants influencing vaccine uptake and to assess methodological approaches used in these studies.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify discrete choice experiments focusing on COVID-19 vaccination preferences up to 31 December, 2024. Attribute categorization into five dimensions Outcome, Process, Cost, Trust, and Framing was performed and quality appraised according to the DIRECT checklist. Conditional relative importance as well as geographical differences were assessed.Results: The review identified 58 studies employing discrete choice experiments that assessed public COVID-19 vaccine preferences. Among attribute categories, outcome-related factors were the most frequently used and had the highest relative importance. Other commonly evaluated attributes included cost, origin/brand, and required doses. A notable geographic disparity was observed, with studies being unevenly distributed across different regions. Methodological heterogeneity was observed in attribute selection and experimental design.Conclusions: This review emphasizes the importance of considering individual preferences into vaccination strategies to enhance uptake, particularly in preparation for future pandemics. The findings reveal that vaccine effectiveness and safety are key concerns for individuals. Future research could focus on increasing representation of underexamined regions in preference studies to better inform local policymakers in developing effective vaccination programs for future health crises.Clinical trial registration: This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with the ID CRD42025543234.","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.\",\"authors\":\"Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Charlotte Beaudart, Jonathan Douxfils, Dweeti Nayak, Mickaël Hiligsmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-025-00753-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced vaccination strategies and public health policies. Discrete choice experiments have emerged as a valuable tool for understanding preferences regarding vaccination. This study systematically reviews discrete choice experiments conducted on COVID-19 public vaccination preferences to identify key determinants influencing vaccine uptake and to assess methodological approaches used in these studies.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify discrete choice experiments focusing on COVID-19 vaccination preferences up to 31 December, 2024. Attribute categorization into five dimensions Outcome, Process, Cost, Trust, and Framing was performed and quality appraised according to the DIRECT checklist. Conditional relative importance as well as geographical differences were assessed.Results: The review identified 58 studies employing discrete choice experiments that assessed public COVID-19 vaccine preferences. Among attribute categories, outcome-related factors were the most frequently used and had the highest relative importance. Other commonly evaluated attributes included cost, origin/brand, and required doses. A notable geographic disparity was observed, with studies being unevenly distributed across different regions. Methodological heterogeneity was observed in attribute selection and experimental design.Conclusions: This review emphasizes the importance of considering individual preferences into vaccination strategies to enhance uptake, particularly in preparation for future pandemics. The findings reveal that vaccine effectiveness and safety are key concerns for individuals. Future research could focus on increasing representation of underexamined regions in preference studies to better inform local policymakers in developing effective vaccination programs for future health crises.Clinical trial registration: This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with the ID CRD42025543234.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00753-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00753-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的：COVID-19大流行对疫苗接种策略和公共卫生政策产生了重大影响。离散选择实验已经成为理解疫苗接种偏好的一种有价值的工具。本研究系统回顾了针对COVID-19公众疫苗偏好进行的离散选择实验，以确定影响疫苗摄取的关键决定因素，并评估这些研究中使用的方法学方法。方法：对PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science等主要数据库进行系统文献检索，确定截至2024年12月31日的COVID-19疫苗接种偏好的离散选择实验。将属性分为结果、过程、成本、信任和框架五个维度，并根据DIRECT检查表进行质量评价。评估了条件相对重要性以及地理差异。结果：该综述确定了58项采用离散选择实验评估公众COVID-19疫苗偏好的研究。在属性类别中，结果相关因素是最常用的，具有最高的相对重要性。其他通常评估的属性包括成本、原产地/品牌和所需剂量。研究发现了显著的地理差异，研究在不同地区的分布不均匀。在属性选择和实验设计方面存在方法学上的异质性。结论：这篇综述强调了在疫苗接种策略中考虑个体偏好以提高吸收率的重要性，特别是在为未来的大流行做准备时。研究结果表明，疫苗的有效性和安全性是个人最关心的问题。未来的研究可以集中在偏好研究中增加未被检查地区的代表性，以便更好地为当地政策制定者制定有效的疫苗接种计划提供信息，以应对未来的健康危机。临床试验注册：本综述在PROSPERO（国际前瞻性系统评价注册系统）前瞻性注册，ID为CRD42025543234。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.

Background and objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced vaccination strategies and public health policies. Discrete choice experiments have emerged as a valuable tool for understanding preferences regarding vaccination. This study systematically reviews discrete choice experiments conducted on COVID-19 public vaccination preferences to identify key determinants influencing vaccine uptake and to assess methodological approaches used in these studies.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify discrete choice experiments focusing on COVID-19 vaccination preferences up to 31 December, 2024. Attribute categorization into five dimensions Outcome, Process, Cost, Trust, and Framing was performed and quality appraised according to the DIRECT checklist. Conditional relative importance as well as geographical differences were assessed.

Results: The review identified 58 studies employing discrete choice experiments that assessed public COVID-19 vaccine preferences. Among attribute categories, outcome-related factors were the most frequently used and had the highest relative importance. Other commonly evaluated attributes included cost, origin/brand, and required doses. A notable geographic disparity was observed, with studies being unevenly distributed across different regions. Methodological heterogeneity was observed in attribute selection and experimental design.

Conclusions: This review emphasizes the importance of considering individual preferences into vaccination strategies to enhance uptake, particularly in preparation for future pandemics. The findings reveal that vaccine effectiveness and safety are key concerns for individuals. Future research could focus on increasing representation of underexamined regions in preference studies to better inform local policymakers in developing effective vaccination programs for future health crises.

Clinical trial registration: This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with the ID CRD42025543234.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-

CiteScore

6.60

自引率

8.30%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.