ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022
Attribute nonattendance in COVID-19 vaccine choice: A discrete choice experiment based on Chinese public preference.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Willingness to pay for vaccines in China: A systematic review and single-arm Bayesian meta-analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Preferences and Willingness to Pay for COVID-19 Vaccine Among Individuals With and Without Chronic Diseases: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Inpatient preferences among patients with multiple chronic conditions in China: A discrete choice experiment.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Employees' seeking preference towards influenza vaccination in organization: A discrete choice experiment in China.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Investigating the influencing factors of vaccination decisions for newly developed and established vaccines: a comparative study based on latent class logit models in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Heuristics in vaccination Decision-Making for newly developed Vaccines: Understanding the public's imitative behavior.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Attribute nonattendance in COVID-19 vaccine choice: A discrete choice experiment based on Chinese public preference.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Individual Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccination under the China's 2021 National Vaccination Policy: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study.Vaccines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has not been well controlled, and vaccination could be an effective way to prevent this pandemic. By accommodating attribute nonattendance (ANA) in a discrete choice experiment (DCE), this paper aimed to examine Chinese public preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for COVID-19 vaccine attributes, especially the influence of ANA on the estimated results.
methodsA DCE was designed with four attributes: effectiveness, protection period, adverse reactions and price. A random parameter logit model with an error component (RPL-EC) was used to analyse the heterogeneity of respondents' preferences for COVID-19 vaccine attributes. Two equality constraint latent class (ECLC) models were used to consider the influence of ANA on the estimated results in which the ECLC-homogeneity model considered only ANA and the ECLC-heterogeneity model considered both ANA and preference heterogeneity.
resultsData from 1,576 samples were included in the analyses. Effectiveness had the highest relative importance, followed by adverse reactions and protection period, which were determined by the attributes and levels presented in this study. The ECLC-heterogeneity model improved the goodness of fit of the model and obtained a lower probability of ANA. In the ECLC-heterogeneity model, only a small number of respondents (29.09%) considered all attributes, and price was the most easily ignored attribute (64.23%). Compared with the RPL-EC model, the ECLC-homogeneity model obtained lower WTPs for COVID-19 vaccine attributes, and the ECLC-heterogeneity model obtained mixed WTP results. In the ECLC-heterogeneity model, preference group 1 obtained higher WTPs, and preference groups 2 and 3 obtained lower WTPs.
conclusionsThe RPL-EC, ECLC-homogeneity and ECLC-heterogeneity models obtained inconsistent WTPs for COVID-19 vaccine attributes. The study found that the results of the ECLC-heterogeneity model considering both ANA and preference heterogeneity may be more plausible because ANA and low preference may be confused in the ECLC-homogeneity model and the RPL-EC model. The results showed that the probability of ANA was still high in the ECLC-heterogeneity model, although it was lower than that in the ECLC-homogeneity model. Therefore, in future research on DCE (such as the field of vaccines), ANA should be considered as an essential issue. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Chinese adults from 31 provinces in mainland China participated in the study. All participants completed the COVID-19 vaccine choice questions generated through the DCE design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.