ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Student COVID-19 vaccination preferences in China: A discrete choice experiment.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among health and medical college students: A discrete choice experiment.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- The Public's Self-Avoidance and Other-Reliance in the Reporting of Medical Insurance Fraud: A Cross-Sectional Survey in China.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study uses a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire to investigate student vaccination preferences for both intrinsic and extrinsic attributes. Methods: A two-part DCE questionnaire was distributed to 1,138 students through face-to-face interviews at vaccination centers in Qingdao, China. Conditional logit models were used to understand student preference trade-offs. Mixed logit models (MLM) and sub-group analysis were conducted to understanding student preference heterogeneity. Results: We found that students preferred vaccines with fewer side effects (β = 0.845; 95% CI, 0.779-0.911), administered through third level health facilities (β = 0.170; 95% CI, 0.110-0.230), and had at least 1 year duration of protection (β = 0.396; 95% CI, 0.332-0.461. Higher perception of COVID-19 risks (β = 0.492; 95% CI, 0.432-0.552) increased the likelihood of student vaccination uptake. Surprisingly, vaccine effectiveness (60%) and percentages of acquaintances vaccinated (60%) reduced vaccination utility, which points to free-rider problems. In addition, we find that student study majors did not contribute to preference heterogeneity, and the main disparities in preferences were attributed to student risk tolerances. Conclusion: Both intrinsic and extrinsic attributes were influential factors shaping student preferences for COVID-19 vaccines. Our results inform universities and local governments across China on targeting their vaccination programs.
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.