ArticleJAMA network open2026
Influenza Vaccination Preferences Among Adults Aged 60 Years and Older in Beijing, China.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Influenza vaccination coverage among older adults remains suboptimal in China despite free vaccination policies in some regions. Understanding their preferences may inform strategies to improve uptake. Objective: To quantify preferences for influenza vaccination attributes and assess preference heterogeneity by prior influenza vaccination history. Design, Setting, and Participants: This community-based survey study was conducted at 2 districts in Beijing, China, where influenza vaccination is provided free of charge for adults aged 60 years or older. A convenience sample of adults aged 60 years or older was included from 6 Beijing subdistricts and participated in a discrete choice experiment conducted from August to September 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures: Stated choice among 2 hypothetical influenza vaccination profiles and an opt-out option. Attributes included vaccine effectiveness, risk of mild adverse effects, vaccination venue and operating hours, outreach method, information source, and message content. Conditional logit, mixed logit, scenario simulations, and vaccination-history interaction analyses were performed. Results: Among 514 participants included in the analyses, the median age was 71 years (IQR, 65-79 years), and 356 (69.3%) were women. Higher vaccine effectiveness was associated with greater vaccination preference (β = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.88), whereas higher perceived risk of mild adverse effects was associated with lower preference (β = -5.53; 95% CI, -7.83 to -3.22). Participants preferred community-based vaccination settings, telephone reminders (β = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.36), information from government or community organizations (β = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.02), and messages emphasizing protection of family members (β = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.74). Increasing vaccine effectiveness from 20% to 80% and reducing perceived risk of adverse effects from 20% to 5% were associated with 30.74- and 19.96-percentage-point (pp) increases in the model-estimated choice probability, respectively. Compared with participants with prior vaccination, never-vaccinated participants had a greater preference for opting out (difference in β = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.11 to 2.03), greater sensitivity to mild adverse effect risk (difference in β per 10-pp increase, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.05), and lower responsiveness to vaccine effectiveness (difference in β per 10-pp increase, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this discrete choice experiment of older adults in Beijing, influenza vaccination preferences were associated with vaccine profiles, trusted communication, and community-based service delivery. Prior vaccination history identified differences in benefit-risk weighting that may inform broad and targeted vaccination strategies.
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.