ArticleBMC public health2022
Location, location, location: a discrete choice experiment to inform COVID-19 vaccination programme delivery in the UK.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Satisfaction with immunization services and factors associated with satisfaction among guardians of 0-6-year-old children in China: A cross-sectional study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among health and medical college students: A discrete choice experiment.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Number of medical facilities within driving distance of residence and influenza vaccination status in Japan: A cross-sectional study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Factors influencing vaccine hesitancy among United Kingdom adolescents in a senior high school environment and actions to address it.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Disparity between expected spatial accessibility and actual travel time to vaccination sites: Implications for COVID-19 immunization delays.SSM - population health · 2025Article
- Employees' seeking preference towards influenza vaccination in organization: A discrete choice experiment in China.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Optimizing Dog Rabies Vaccination Services to the Public: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Guangdong, China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- A scoping review on the decision-making dynamics for accepting or refusing the COVID-19 vaccination among adolescent and youth populations.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Article
- The Effectiveness of Interventions for Increasing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Systematic Review.Vaccines · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge-scale vaccination is fundamental to combatting COVID-19. In March 2021, the UK's vaccination programme had delivered vaccines to large proportions of older and more vulnerable population groups; however, there was concern that uptake would be lower among young people. This research was designed to elicit the preferences of 18-29-year-olds regarding key delivery characteristics and assess the influence of these on intentions to get vaccinated, to inform planning for this cohort.
methodsFrom 25 March to 2 April 2021, an online sample of 2012 UK adults aged 18-29 years participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants made six choices, each involving two SMS invitations to book a vaccination appointment and an opt-out. Invitations had four attributes (1 × 5 levels, 3 × 3 levels): delivery mode, appointment timing, proximity, and sender. These were systematically varied according to a d-optimal design. Responses were analysed using a mixed logit model.
resultsThe main effects logit model revealed a large alternative-specific constant (β = 1.385, SE = 0.067, p < 0.001), indicating a strong preference for 'opting in' to appointment invitations. Pharmacies were dispreferred to the local vaccination centre (β = - 0.256, SE = 0.072, p < 0.001), appointments in locations that were 30-45 min travel time from one's premises were dispreferred to locations that were less than 15 min away (β = - 0.408, SE = 0.054, p < 0.001), and, compared to invitations from the NHS, SMSs forwarded by 'a friend' were dispreferred (β = - 0.615, SE = 0.056, p < 0.001) but invitations from the General Practitioner were preferred (β = 0.105, SE = 0.048, p = 0.028).
conclusionsThe results indicated that the existing configuration of the UK's vaccination programme was well-placed to deliver vaccines to 18-29-year-olds; however, some adjustments might enhance acceptance. Local pharmacies were not preferred; long travel times were a disincentive but close proximity (0-15 min from one's premises) was not necessary; and either the 'NHS' or 'Your GP' would serve as adequate invitation sources. This research informed COVID-19 policy in the UK, and contributes to a wider body of Discrete Choice Experiment evidence on citizens' preferences, requirements and predicted behaviours regarding COVID-19.
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.