» Articles » PMID: 37008807

What Motivates Adults to Accept Influenza Vaccine? An Assessment of Incentives, Ease of Access, Messaging, and Sources of Information Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Overview
Date 2023 Apr 3
PMID 37008807
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Seasonal influenza vaccination rates remain low, and contribute to preventable influenza cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the US. While numerous interventions have been implemented to increase vaccine uptake, there is a need to determine which interventions contribute most to vaccine willingness, particularly among age groups with vaccination rates that have plateaued at suboptimal levels. This study aimed to quantify the relative effect of multiple interventions on vaccine willingness to receive influenza vaccine in three age groups using a series of hypothetical situations with different behavioral interventions. We assessed the relative impact of four categories of interventions: source of vaccine messages, type of vaccination messages, vaccination incentives, and ease of vaccine access using a discrete choice experiment. Within each category, we investigated the role of four different attributes to measure their relative contribution to willingness to be vaccinated by removing one option from each of the intervention categories. Among the 1,763 Minnesota residents who volunteered for our study, participants expressed vaccine willingness in over 80% of the scenarios presented. Easy access to drop-in vaccination sites had the greatest impact on vaccine willingness in all age groups. Among the younger age group, small financial incentives also contributed to high vaccine willingness. Our results suggest that public health programs and vaccination campaigns may improve their chances of successfully increasing vaccine willingness if they offer interventions preferred by adults, including facilitating convenient access to vaccination and offering small monetary incentives, particularly for young adults.

Citing Articles

The Influence of Altitude, Urbanization, and Local Vaccination Centers on Vaccine Uptake within an Italian Health District: An Analysis of 15,000 Individuals Eligible for Vaccination.

Ceccarelli A, Soro G, Reali C, Biguzzi E, Farneti R, Frassineti V Vaccines (Basel). 2024; 12(8).

PMID: 39204001 PMC: 11359255. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12080875.


Examining the role of knowledge and trust on vaccine confidence in North Dakota among university students, faculty, and staff.

Bruns M, Walch T, Wagner C, Bergeron R, Kim S BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):1539.

PMID: 38849753 PMC: 11157701. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19056-x.


New Vaccine Platforms-Novel Dimensions of Economic and Societal Value and Their Measurement.

Buck P, Gomes D, Beck E, Kirson N, Mattera M, Carroll S Vaccines (Basel). 2024; 12(3).

PMID: 38543868 PMC: 10974797. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12030234.

References
1.
Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J . Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2010; 20(3):273-86. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1587. View

2.
Santibanez T, Kennedy E . Reasons given for not receiving an influenza vaccination, 2011-12 influenza season, United States. Vaccine. 2016; 34(24):2671-8. PMC: 5751433. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.039. View

3.
Mussio I, de Oliveira A . An (un)healthy social dilemma: a normative messaging field experiment with flu vaccinations. Health Econ Rev. 2022; 12(1):41. PMC: 9344251. DOI: 10.1186/s13561-022-00385-9. View

4.
Verelst F, Kessels R, Delva W, Beutels P, Willem L . Drivers of vaccine decision-making in South Africa: A discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2019; 37(15):2079-2089. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.02.056. View

5.
Besedes T, Deck C, Sarangi S, Shor M . Age Effects and Heuristics in Decision Making. Rev Econ Stat. 2012; 94(2):580-595. PMC: 3337688. DOI: 10.1162/REST_a_00174. View