Suppr超能文献

澳大利亚青少年对免疫规划的价值观:一项离散选择实验。

Adolescent values for immunisation programs in Australia: A discrete choice experiment.

作者信息

Wang Bing, Chen Gang, Ratcliffe Julie, Afzali Hossein Haji Ali, Giles Lynne, Marshall Helen

机构信息

The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 Jul 26;12(7):e0181073. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181073. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The importance of adolescent engagement in health decisions and public health programs such as immunisation is becoming increasingly recognised. Understanding adolescent preferences and further identifying barriers and facilitators for immunisation acceptance is critical to the success of adolescent immunisation programs. This study applied a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess vaccination preferences in adolescents.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a cross-sectional, national online survey in Australian adolescents. The DCE survey evaluated adolescent vaccination preferences. Six attributes were assessed including disease severity, target for protection, price, location of vaccination provision, potential side effects and vaccine delivery method. A mixed logit model was used to analyse DCE data.

RESULTS

This survey was conducted between December 2014 and January 2015. Of 800 adolescents aged 15 to 19 years, stronger preferences were observed overall for: vaccination in the case of a life threatening illness (p<0.001), lower price vaccinations (p<0.001), mild but common side effects (p = 0.004), delivery via a skin patch (p<0.001) and being administered by a family practitioner (p<0.001). Participants suggested that they and their families would be willing to pay AU$394.28 (95%CI: AU$348.40 to AU$446.92) more for a vaccine targeting a life threatening illness than a mild-moderate illness, AU$37.94 (95%CI: AU$19.22 to AU$57.39) more for being vaccinated at a family practitioner clinic than a council immunisation clinic, AU$23.01 (95%CI: AU$7.12 to AU$39.24) more for common but mild and resolving side effects compared to rare but serious side effects, and AU$51.80 (95%CI: AU$30.42 to AU$73.70) more for delivery via a skin patch than injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of adolescent preferences may result in improved acceptance of, engagement in and uptake of immunisation programs targeted for this age group.

摘要

目的

青少年参与健康决策以及诸如免疫接种等公共卫生项目的重要性日益得到认可。了解青少年的偏好,并进一步确定影响免疫接种接受度的障碍和促进因素,对于青少年免疫接种项目的成功至关重要。本研究应用离散选择实验(DCE)来评估青少年的疫苗接种偏好。

方法

本研究作为一项横断面全国在线调查,在澳大利亚青少年中开展。DCE调查评估了青少年的疫苗接种偏好。评估了六个属性,包括疾病严重程度、保护对象、价格、疫苗接种地点、潜在副作用和疫苗接种方式。使用混合逻辑回归模型分析DCE数据。

结果

本调查于2014年12月至2015年1月进行。在800名15至19岁的青少年中,总体上观察到对以下方面有更强的偏好:在危及生命的疾病情况下接种疫苗(p<0.001)、价格较低的疫苗接种(p<0.001)、轻微但常见的副作用(p = 0.004)、通过皮肤贴片接种(p<0.001)以及由家庭医生接种(p<0.001)。参与者表示,与针对轻度至中度疾病的疫苗相比,他们及其家人愿意为针对危及生命疾病的疫苗多支付394.28澳元(95%CI:348.40澳元至446.92澳元);与市政免疫接种诊所相比,在家庭医生诊所接种疫苗愿意多支付37.94澳元(95%CI:19.22澳元至57.39澳元);与罕见但严重的副作用相比,对于常见但轻微且可缓解的副作用愿意多支付23.01澳元(95%CI:7.12澳元至39.24澳元);与注射方式相比,通过皮肤贴片接种愿意多支付51.80澳元(95%CI:30.42澳元至73.70澳元)。

结论

考虑青少年的偏好可能会提高该年龄组免疫接种项目的接受度、参与度和接种率。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5fd2/5528895/73216e4ea406/pone.0181073.g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Adolescent values for immunisation programs in Australia: A discrete choice experiment.
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 26;12(7):e0181073. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181073. eCollection 2017.
2
Adolescent, parent and societal preferences and willingness to pay for meningococcal B vaccine: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Vaccine. 2016 Jan 27;34(5):671-677. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.075. Epub 2015 Dec 28.
3
Acceptance of vaccinations in pandemic outbreaks: a discrete choice experiment.
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 24;9(7):e102505. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102505. eCollection 2014.
5
Adolescent confidence in immunisation: Assessing and comparing attitudes of adolescents and adults.
Vaccine. 2016 Nov 4;34(46):5595-5603. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.09.040. Epub 2016 Sep 28.
6
Eliciting youth and adult recommendations through citizens' juries to improve school based adolescent immunisation programs.
Vaccine. 2014 May 1;32(21):2434-40. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.02.098. Epub 2014 Mar 14.
10
Parental preferences for rotavirus vaccination in young children: a discrete choice experiment.
Vaccine. 2014 Oct 29;32(47):6277-83. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.09.004. Epub 2014 Sep 16.

引用本文的文献

2
Vaccine decision making in New Zealand: a discrete choice experiment.
BMC Public Health. 2024 Feb 12;24(1):447. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-17865-8.
3
Valuing the Dental Caries Utility Index in Australia.
Med Decis Making. 2023 Oct-Nov;43(7-8):901-913. doi: 10.1177/0272989X231197149. Epub 2023 Sep 19.
4
The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples' preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review.
Eur J Health Econ. 2023 Aug;24(6):987-998. doi: 10.1007/s10198-022-01528-9. Epub 2022 Sep 28.
5
Parental preference for influenza vaccine for children in China: a discrete choice experiment.
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 9;12(6):e055725. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055725.

本文引用的文献

3
Adolescent, parent and societal preferences and willingness to pay for meningococcal B vaccine: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Vaccine. 2016 Jan 27;34(5):671-677. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.075. Epub 2015 Dec 28.
4
Preferences for Vaccination: Does Health Literacy Make a Difference?
Med Decis Making. 2015 Nov;35(8):948-58. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15597225. Epub 2015 Sep 3.
5
Parents' preferences and willingness-to-pay for human papilloma virus vaccines in Thailand.
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2015 Jul 22;8(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40545-015-0040-8. eCollection 2015.
7
Using discrete choice modeling to evaluate the preferences and willingness to pay for leptospirosis vaccine.
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(4):1046-56. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1010901.
8
Pediatricians' preferences for infant meningococcal vaccination.
Value Health. 2015 Jan;18(1):67-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.10.010.
9
The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments.
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 3;9(11):e111805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111805. eCollection 2014.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验