ArticleHealth science reports2024
Factors influencing individual vaccine preferences for COVID-19 in the Sunyani Municipality, Ghana: An observational study using discrete choice experiment analysis.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Vaccine preferences and their role for vaccine confidence and uptake: a meta-ethnography.Global health action · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Factors influencing individual vaccine preferences for COVID-19 in the Sunyani Municipality, Ghana: An observational study using discrete choice experiment analysis.Health science reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: There has been hesitancy among people with regard to accepting vaccines, especially that of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). This hesitancy is aggravated by the different vaccine alternatives available and what one considers before choosing a particular vaccine. The aim of this article was to investigate some driving factors that can influence an individual's COVID-19 vaccine preference in the presence of other alternatives, using some specific vaccine characteristics. Methods: Discrete choice questionnaire was designed using the attributes and their corresponding levels to collect data on participants' preference for a COVID vaccine over a period of 12 Weeks in Sunyani, Ghana, with the help of an observational study design. A total of 150 participants receiving Covid-19 vaccines at the University of Energy and Natural Resources Hospital were systematically selected and interviewed. Factors considered included: Efficacy of the vaccine, credibility of the manufacturing company, side effects of the vaccine, and availability of the vaccine. Data was analyzed using the conditional probit of the discrete choice experiment (DCE). Results: Results from the study using the conditional probit of the discrete choice experiment (DCE) showed efficacy, side effects, and availability as significant attributes for preference. However, there was no preference with respect to the credibility of the manufacturing company. In addition, vaccine availability was not a dis-utility in comparison to the alternatives that are readily available. This disutility was however higher among males than females. Conclusion: From the study, most respondents preferred a COVID-19 vaccine that is highly efficacious or a vaccine with milder side effect or a vaccine that may not necessarily be readily available. It was also observed that dis-utility is higher among males when it comes to vaccine not being readily available than females as the odds of a female choosing a vaccine that is readily available is much higher compared to their males counterparts.
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.