SynthesisThe patient2025
A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.
Synthesis in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sociodemographic and Health-Risk Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Preferences and Willingness to Pay in Singapore: Discrete Choice Experiment.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced vaccination strategies and public health policies. Discrete choice experiments have emerged as a valuable tool for understanding preferences regarding vaccination. This study systematically reviews discrete choice experiments conducted on COVID-19 public vaccination preferences to identify key determinants influencing vaccine uptake and to assess methodological approaches used in these studies.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify discrete choice experiments focusing on COVID-19 vaccination preferences up to 31 December, 2024. Attribute categorization into five dimensions Outcome, Process, Cost, Trust, and Framing was performed and quality appraised according to the DIRECT checklist. Conditional relative importance as well as geographical differences were assessed.
resultsThe review identified 58 studies employing discrete choice experiments that assessed public COVID-19 vaccine preferences. Among attribute categories, outcome-related factors were the most frequently used and had the highest relative importance. Other commonly evaluated attributes included cost, origin/brand, and required doses. A notable geographic disparity was observed, with studies being unevenly distributed across different regions. Methodological heterogeneity was observed in attribute selection and experimental design.
conclusionsThis review emphasizes the importance of considering individual preferences into vaccination strategies to enhance uptake, particularly in preparation for future pandemics. The findings reveal that vaccine effectiveness and safety are key concerns for individuals. Future research could focus on increasing representation of underexamined regions in preference studies to better inform local policymakers in developing effective vaccination programs for future health crises. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with the ID CRD42025543234.
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.