Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35570849›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2022

Parental preferences for a mandatory vaccination scheme in England: A discrete choice experiment.

Louise E Smith, Ben Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Louise E SmithDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ, UK.
Ben CarterDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mandatory vaccination has been mooted to combat falling childhood vaccine uptake rates in England. This study investigated parental preferences for a mandatory vaccination scheme. Methods: Discrete choice experiment. Six attributes were investigated: vaccine, child age group, incentive, penalty, ability to opt out, and compensation scheme. Mixed effects conditional logit regression models were used to investigate parental preferences and relative importance of attributes. Findings: Participants were 1,001 parents of children aged 5 years and under in England (53% female; mean age=33·6 years, SD=7·1; 84% white). Parental preferences were mostly based on incentives (30·7% relative importance; 80·9% [95% confidence interval 76·3-85·0%] preference for parent and 74·8% [71·0-78·3%] for child incentive; reference: no incentive) and penalties (25·4% relative importance; 69·5% [65·7-73·1%] preference for schemes where unvaccinated children cannot attend school or day care and 67·6% [63·6-71·4%] for those withholding financial benefits for parents of unvaccinated children; reference: £450 fine). Parents also preferred schemes that: offered a compensation scheme (18·1% relative importance; 66·4% [62·7-69·8%] preference; reference: not offered), mandated vaccination in children aged 2 years (versus 5 years; 11·4% relative importance; 42·6% [39·4-45·9%] preference; reference: 2 years), mandated the 6-in-1 vaccine (10·5% relative importance; 58·2% [54·6-61·7%] preference; reference: MMR), and that offered only medical exemptions (versus medical and religious belief exemptions; 4·0% relative importance; 45·5% [41·1-50·0%] preference; reference: medical exemptions). Interpretation: These findings can inform policymakers' decisions about how best to implement a mandatory childhood vaccination scheme in England. Funding: Data collection was funded by a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grants (SRG1920\101118).

Indexed as

Childhood vaccineExemptionsFinancial incentivesPolicyVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID35570849
PMCPMC9097614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.