ArticleThe patient2023
How Does the Public Evaluate Vaccines for Low-Incidence, Severe-Outcome Diseases? A General-Population Choice Experiment.
Article in The patient, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Severity or Incidence: Labeling Side-Effect Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Article
- New Vaccine Platforms-Novel Dimensions of Economic and Societal Value and Their Measurement.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Perceptions of the seriousness of major public health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic in seven middle-income countries.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- Young Adult and Parent Willingness to Pay for Meningococcal Serogroup B Vaccination.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause immunizing large numbers of healthy people could be required to reduce a relatively small number of infections, disease incidence has a large impact on cost effectiveness, even if the infection is associated with very serious health outcomes. In addition to cost effectiveness, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices requires evidence of stakeholders' values and preferences to help inform vaccine recommendations. This study quantified general-population preferences for vaccine trade-offs among disease severity, disease incidence, and other vaccine features.
methodsWe developed a best-practice discrete choice experiment survey and administered it to 1185 parents of children aged 12-23 years and 1203 young adults aged 18-25 years from a national opt-in consumer panel. The data were analyzed using exploded-logit latent-class analysis.
resultsLatent-class analysis identified two classes with similar relative-importance weights in both samples. One of the two classes represented about half the samples and had preferences consistent with well-structured, logically ordered, and acceptably precise stated-preference utility. Preferences for the other half of the samples were poorly defined over the ranges of vaccine and disease attributes evaluated. Both parents and young adults in the first class evaluated protection from a disease with 1 in 100 incidence and full recovery at home as having statistically the same preference utility as a disease with 1 in 1 million incidence requiring hospitalization and resulting in permanent deafness.
conclusionsThe results suggest that vaccines that protect against low-incidence, severe-outcome diseases, provide 'peace of mind' benefits not captured by standard health-outcome metrics. The fact that half the respondents had poorly defined vaccine preferences is a reminder of the challenges of implementing patient-centric vaccine decision making.
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.