Background
Methods
Search terms and strategy
Assessment of included studies
Review of study characteristics
Assessment of quality
Data comparison
Comparison of high- and lower-quality studies
Ethics
Results
Search results
Review of study characteristics
General study characteristics
Aspect | Specification | Number of studies (%) |
---|---|---|
Choice based experiment | ADCE | 1 (2.4) |
CA | 10 (23.8) | |
DCE | 31 (73.8) | |
Year of publication | 2000–2005 | 2 (4.8) |
2006–2010 | 3 (7.1) | |
2011–2015 | 19 (45.2) | |
2016–2020 (September) | 18 (42.9) | |
Target groupa | Health advisors | 4 (9.5) |
Representatives | 20 (47.9) | |
Vaccinees | 15 (35.7) | |
Vaccinees & representatives | 3 (7.1) | |
Objectiveb | Assess preferences vaccines, vaccine attributes, vaccine programs | 36 (85.7) |
Compare individual DCE | 1 (2.4) | |
Compare RP with SP | 1 (2.4) | |
Estimate WTP | 15 (35.7) | |
Explore variation in preferences across groups | 8 (19.0) | |
External factors influencing preferences | 6 (14.3) | |
Identify reason(s) not to vaccinate | 1 (2.4) | |
Predict vaccine uptake/coverage | 11 (26.2) | |
Policy recommendations design and/or communication of vaccine programs/strategies | 10 (23.8) | |
Trade-off vaccine attributes | 6 (14.3) |
Country | Number of studies (%)a | Type of vaccine | Number of studies (%)a |
---|---|---|---|
Australia | 3 (7.1) | Childhood (combination) vaccines | 6 (14.3) |
Belgium | 1 (2.4) | General vaccines | 3 (7.1) |
Canada | 1 (2.4) | Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine | 2 (4.8) |
China | 3 (7.1) | Herpes zoster vaccine | 1 (2.4) |
Europe (not specified) | 1 (2.4) | Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine | 9 (21.4) |
France | 2 (4.8) | Hypothetical vaccine | 5 (11.9) |
Germany | 3 (7.1) | Influenza vaccine | 8 (19.0) |
Hong Kong | 3 (7.1) | Leptospirosis vaccine | 1 (2.4) |
Hungary | 1 (2.4) | Meningococcal (B) vaccine | 3 (7.1) |
Italy | 1 (2.4) | Pertussis vaccine | 1 (2.4) |
Japan | 2 (4.8) | Pneumococcal vaccine | 1 (2.4) |
Netherlands, the | 9 (21.4) | Rotavirus vaccine | 2 (4.8) |
Philippines, the | 1 (2.4) | Tetanus-Diphtheria-Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine | 1 (2.4) |
Poland | 2 (4.8) | Travel vaccines | 1 (2.4) |
South-Africa | 1 (2.4) | Varicella vaccine | 1 (2.4) |
Spain | 2 (4.8) | ||
Sweden | 1 (2.4) | ||
Thailand | 1 (2.4) | ||
United Kingdom | 2 (4.8) | ||
Unites States of America | 7 (16.7) | ||
Vietnam | 1 (2.4) |
Choice task
Aspect | Specification | Number of studies (%) |
---|---|---|
Methods to identify attributesa | Characteristics vaccine, disease | 2 (4.8) |
Expert consultation | 19 (45.2) | |
Literature review | 33 (78.6) | |
Previous DCE | 4 (9.5) | |
Qualitative research | 28 (66.7) | |
Theories vaccine decision-making | 1 (2.4) | |
Vaccination policy | 1 (2.4) | |
Not reported | 1 (2.4) | |
Choice structure | Binary | 3 (7.1) |
Multinomial | 39 (92.9) | |
Methods to create choice sets, of multinomial studies (n = 39)a | D-efficiency | 3 (7.7) |
D-efficiency using software | 11 (28.2) | |
Fold-over | 3 (7.7) | |
Random | 3 (7.7) | |
Random using software | 1 (2.6) | |
Other software | 5 (12.8) | |
Not reported | 13 (33.3) | |
Format of choice question, of multinomial studies (n = 39)b | Forced choice | 4 (10.3) |
Forced choice, followed by opt-out | 12 (30.8) | |
Unforced choice with opt-out | 18 (46.2) | |
Unforced choice with opt-out, followed by forced choice | 2 (5.1) | |
Unclear | 3 (7.7) | |
Number of choice tasks | < 10 | 17 (40.5) |
10–15 | 10 (23.8) | |
> 15 | 10 (23.8) | |
Not reported | 5 (11.9) |
Experimental design
Aspect | Specification | Number of studies (%)b |
---|---|---|
Type of design | Fractional factorial design | 35 (83.3) |
Full factorial design | 1 (2.4) | |
Not reported | 6 (14.3) | |
Design plan | Main effects | 2 (4.8) |
Main and interaction effects | 23 (54.8) | |
Not reported, main effects in primary analysis | 13 (31.0) | |
Not reported, main & interaction effects in primary analysis | 1 (2.4) | |
Not reported, unclear in analysis | 3 (7.1) | |
Software/approach, of studies reporting type of design (n = 36)a | Ngene | 9 (25.0) |
SAS | 3 (8.3) | |
Sawtooth | 3 (8.3) | |
SPSS | 2 (5.6) | |
Other computer algorithm | 3 (8.3) | |
Catalog approach | 5 (13.9) | |
Manual | 1 (2.8) | |
Other approach | 2 (5.6) | |
Not reported | 8 (22.2) | |
Piloting | Yes | 34 (81.0) |
No | 1 (2.4) | |
Not reported | 7 (16.7) | |
Mode of administration | Interview-administered | 5 (11.9) |
Self-administered | 34 (81.0) | |
Both | 1 (2.4) | |
Not reported | 2 (4.8) | |
Sample size | < 200 | 1 (2.4) |
200–400 | 14 (33.3) | |
400–600 | 12 (28.6) | |
600–800 | 6 (14.3) | |
800–1000 | 2 (4.8) | |
1000–1200 | 1 (2.4) | |
≥ 1200 | 6 (14.3) | |
(Financial) compensation | Yes | 15 (35.7) |
No | 2 (4.8) | |
Not reported | 25 (59.5) |
Conduct
Analysis
Aspect | Specification | Number of studies (%)a |
---|---|---|
Econometric model Subgroup analysis | Multinomial logit | 12 (28.6) |
Generalized linear random effects logit | 1 (2.4) | |
Hierarchical Bayes | 6 (14.3) | |
Latent class | 4 (9.5) | |
Random effects logit | 6 (14.3) | |
Mixed logit (random parameter) | 21 (50.0) | |
Other | 5 (11.9) | |
Methodology related | 29 (69.0) | |
Previous experiences | 5 (11.9) | |
Sociodemographic factor(s) | 32 (76.2) | |
Vaccine beliefs/perception/knowledge | 13 (31.0) | |
Vaccine intention or behaviour | 6 (14.3) | |
Vaccination or health status | 5 (11.9) | |
Other | 5 (11.9) | |
Outcome measure | Individual utility scores | 3 (7.1) |
Odds ratio, change in log-odds | 8 (19.0) | |
Relative attribute importance | 10 (23.8) | |
Marginal rate of substitution (trade-off) | 8 (19.0) | |
Vaccine uptake/probability analysis | 18 (42.9) | |
WTP | 19 (45.2) | |
Other | 4 (9.5) | |
Analysis software | JMP Pro | 2 (4.8) |
Nlogit | 9 (21.4) | |
SAS | 11 (26.2) | |
Sawtooth | 4 (9.5) | |
SPSS | 3 (7.1) | |
Stata | 11 (26.2) | |
Other | 10 (23.8) | |
Not reported | 7 (16.7) | |
Journal | Clinical | 25 (59.5) |
Economic | 6 (14.3) | |
General | 4 (9.5) | |
Marketing | 1 (2.4) | |
Methodological | 1 (2.4) | |
Pharmaceutical | 1 (2.4) | |
Fundingb | Yes Industry-funded | 11 (28.2) |
Non-industry-funded | 27 (69.2) | |
No | 1 (2.6) |
Journal & funding
Quality assessment
Criteria | Study | |||||||||||||||||||||
Adams et al. [39] | Arbiol et al. [46] | Bishai et al. [47] | Brown et al. [35] | Brown et al. [36] | de Bekker-Grob et al. [48] | de Bekker-Grob et al. [38] | Determann et al. [49] | Eilers et al. [51] | Flood et al. [52] | Flood et al. [53] | Guo et al. [55] | Hall et al. [41] | Hofman et al. [56] | Hofman et al. [44] | Huang et al. [57] | Lambooij et al. [58] | Ledent et al. [59] | |||||
Choice task design | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Attributes and levels grounded in qualitative work with target population | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | ||
No conceptual overlap between attributes | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
Uni-dimensional attributes | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | ||
Opt-out/status quo option or justification forced choice | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Experimental design | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Experimental design optimal or statistically efficient | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | ||
Conduct | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Piloting conducted amongst target population | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | ||
Target population(s) appropriate for research objective | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | ||
Sampling frame representative of target population | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | ||
Response rate sufficient to minimize response bias | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | ||
Analysis | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Any pooled analysis from different subgroups appropriate | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | ||
Econometric model appropriate for choice task design | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | ||
Econometric model accounts for serial correlation of choices | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Relative attribute effects compared using a common metric | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Total validity score | 10 | 9.5 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 11.5 | 12.5 | 12 | 12 | 8.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 8.5 | 9.5 | 8.5 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 6.5 | 9 | 7.5 | ||
Validity criteria | Study | |||||||||||||||||||||
Liao et al. [60] | Liao et al. [61] | Lloyd et al. [37] | Marshall et al. [42] | Ngorsuraches et al. [45] | Oteng et al. [62] | Pereira et al. [63] | Poulos et al. [64] | Poulos et al. [65] | Poulos et al. [66] | Poulos et al. [40] | Sadique et al. [67] | Sapède et al. [68] | Seanehia et al. [69] | Shono et al. [70] | Shono et al. [71] | Sun et al. [72] | Veldwijk et al. [34] | Verelst et al. [73] | Verelst et al. [74] | Wang et al. [75] | Wong et al. [76] | |
Choice task design | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Attributes and levels grounded in qualitative work with target population | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
No conceptual overlap between attributes | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 |
Uni-dimensional attributes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 |
Opt-out/status quo option or justification forced choice | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 |
Experimental design | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Experimental design optimal or statistically efficient | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 |
Conduct | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Piloting conducted amongst target population | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Target population(s) appropriate for research objective | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 |
Sampling frame representative of target population | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Response rate sufficient to minimize response bias | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Analysis | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Any pooled analysis from different subgroups appropriate | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 |
Econometric model appropriate for choice task design | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Econometric model accounts for serial correlation of choices | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Relative attribute effects compared using a common metric | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 |
Total validity score | 8 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9.5 | 8 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 9.5 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 12.5 | 8 | 10.5 | 8.5 | 9.5 |
Comparison of high-quality studies
Vaccinees
Category & domain (n=)* | Statistical significance** | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
P < 0.10 | P < 0.05 | P < 0.01 | Total | Not significant | |
Outcome | |||||
Protection duration (n = 6) | 0 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 1 |
Vaccine effectiveness (n = 8) | 0 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 1 |
Vaccine risk (n = 7) | 0 | 4 | 11 | 15 | 0 |
Process | |||||
Dosing & visits (n = 3) | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
Time (n = 2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Vaccination age (n = 2) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Vaccine accessibility (n = 1) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Cost | |||||
Cost (n = 5) | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 0 |
Other | |||||
Context (n = 1) | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Disease risk (n = 2) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Information (n = 2) | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
Other disease related factors (n = 1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Vaccine advice/support (n = 2) | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 0 |
Representatives
Category & domain (n=)* | Statistical significance** | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P < 0.10 | P < 0.05 | P < 0.01 | P < 0.001 | Total | Not significant | |
Outcome | ||||||
Protection duration (n = 4) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Vaccine effectiveness (n = 6) | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 0 |
Vaccine risk (n = 5) | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
Process | ||||||
Dosing & visits (n = 2) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Service delivery (n = 2) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Target group (n = 1) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Time (n = 1) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Vaccination age (n = 1) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Vaccine accessibility (n = 1) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Cost | ||||||
Cost (n = 5) | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 0 |
Other | ||||||
Context (n = 1) | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Disease risk (n = 1) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Information (n = 1) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |