Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28474295›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2017

Individual Preferences for Child and Adolescent Vaccine Attributes: A Systematic Review of the Stated Preference Literature.

Christine Michaels-Igbokwe, Shannon MacDonald, Gillian R Currie

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Patient versus physician preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy: A discrete choice experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Christine Michaels-IgbokweDepartments of Community Health Sciences and Paediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. michaels-igbokwe@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0469-7055
Shannon MacDonaldFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Gillian R CurrieDepartments of Community Health Sciences and Paediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiscrete choice experiments are increasingly used to assess preferences for vaccines and vaccine service delivery.

objectivesTo synthesize and critically assess the application of discrete choice experiments in childhood/adolescent vaccines, to describe how discrete choice experiments have been applied to understand preferences, and to evaluate the use of discrete choice experiment data to inform estimates of vaccine uptake.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of six electronic databases. Included studies were discrete choice experiments and conjoint analyses published from 2000 to 2016 related to childhood/adolescent vaccines where respondents were parents, children/adolescents, or service providers. Validity assessment was used to assess study quality and risk of bias.

resultsIn total, 27 articles were included, representing 21 different studies. A majority of articles were published between 2011 and 2016. Vaccines studied included human papillomavirus (24%), influenza (19%), meningococcal vaccines (14%), childhood vaccines (14%), hypothetical vaccines (10%), hepatitis B (5%), and diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (5%). Most studies assessed parent preferences (67%). The most common attributes were risk (24%), degree/duration of protection (21%), and cost (15%). Commonly reported outcome measures were estimates of uptake (33%), willingness-to-pay (22%), and other marginal rates of substitution (14%). Validity assessments yielded high scores overall. Areas of weakness included low response rates, inefficient experimental design, and failure to conduct formative qualitative work and a pilot of the discrete choice experiment.

conclusionThis is the first systematic review of childhood/adolescent vaccine-related discrete choice experiments. In future, special attention should be paid to ensuring that choice context and discrete choice experiment design are compatible to generate reliable estimates of uptake.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansInfantMaleParentsPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.