ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2025
Preferences of Dutch Parents and Expectant Parents for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prevention Strategies: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory tract infection in infants. This study examined the preferences of Dutch parents and expectant parents for two RSV prevention strategies for infant protection: a maternal vaccine versus an infant monoclonal antibody (mAb) injection.
methodsAn online survey including a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Participants chose between two immunisation options for 'a common virus among infants' that represented RSV. These differed based on six attributes: timing and recipient of the injection, costs, recommended by a healthcare provider (HCP), included in the National Immunisation Programme (NIP), administration location, and co-administered with other injections. The main outcomes were preference weights, conditional relative attribute importance (CRAI), and willingness to be immunised.
resultsThe survey was completed by 150 participants (90% female; 49% parents; 51% expectant parents; mean age 31.23 ± 5.61 years). Participants preferred an immunisation option that is administered to pregnant women [mean = 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.82)], free of charge [mean = 1.36 (95% CI 1.10-1.67)], recommended by an HCP [mean = 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66)], and included in the NIP [mean = 0.42 (95% CI, 0.26-0.58)]. The most important attributes were timing and recipient of the injection [CRAI = 32% (95% CI, 28-35%)] and costs [CRAI = 24% (95% CI, 20-28%)]. Willingness to be immunised was higher when the maternal vaccine and infant mAb injection were in the NIP than when only the infant mAb injection was available (89% vs 74%).
conclusionsThe results suggest that most Dutch parents and expectant parents would prefer a maternal vaccine to an infant mAb injection to immunise their infants against an RSV-like virus. An NIP that incorporates both strategies may enhance uptake and protect the most infants. However, as the attributes were not exhaustively or explicitly presented in the context of RSV prevention, the results may not be completely transferable.
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.