Parents’ preferences for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus in the Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment

BMC Public Health

Ida J Korfage²  Marjolein van Ballegooijen²  Theo JM Helmerhorst¹  Hein Raat²  Esther W de Bekker-Grob²  Robine Hofman² 

[1] Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040 3000, CA, The Netherlands;Department of Public Health Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040 3000, CA, The Netherlands

关键词: Parents;    Discrete choice experiment;    Vaccination;    Human Papillomavirus;    Preferences;   

Others  :  1131404
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-454

 received in 2013-12-02, accepted in 2014-05-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

To generate knowledge about potential improvements to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination information and organization strategies, we assessed how aspects of HPV vaccination are associated with parents’ preferences for their daughters’ uptake, and which trade-offs parents are willing to make between these aspects.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among parents with a daughter aged 10–12 years. Panel mixed logit regression models were used to determine parents’ preferences for vaccination. Trade-offs were quantified between four vaccination programme aspects: degree of protection against cervical cancer, duration of protection, risk of serious side-effects, and age of vaccination.

Results

Total response rate was 302/983 (31%). All aspects influenced respondents’ preferences for HPV vaccination (p < 0.05). Respondents preferred vaccination at age 14 years instead of at a younger age. Respondents were willing to trade-off 11% of the degree of protection to obtain life-time protection instead of 25 years. To obtain a vaccination with a risk of serious side-effects of 1/750,000 instead of 1/150,000, respondents were willing to trade-off 21%.

Conclusions

Uptake may rise if the age ranges for free HPV vaccinations are broadened. Based on the trade-offs parents were willing to make, we conclude that uptake would increase if new evidence indicated outcomes are better than are currently understood, particularly for degree and duration of protection.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hofman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Munoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV: The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol 2002, 55:244-265.
• [2]Munoz N, Bosch FX, Castellsague X, Diaz M, de Sanjose S, Hammouda D, Shah KV, Meijer CJ: Against which human papillomavirus types shall we vaccinate and screen? The international perspective. Int J Cancer 2004, 111:278-285.
• [3]ECCA: HPV Vaccination Across Europe. Brussels: European Cervical Cancer Association; 2009.
• [4]European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Introduction of HPV vaccines in EU countries - an update. Stockholm: ECDC; 2012.
• [5]van Lier EA, Oomen PJ, Giesbers H, Drijfhout IH, de Hoogh PAAM, de Melker HE: Immunization coverage National Immunization Programme in the Netherlands: Year of report 2011 [Vaccinatiegraad Rijksvaccinatieprogramma Nederland: Verslagjaar 2011]. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2011.
• [6]Zwakhals S, van Lier E, Giesbers H: HPV (cohort 1998, interim score three vaccinations) by municipality 2012 [HPV (cohort 1998, tussenstand drie vaccinaties) per gemeente 2012]. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2012.
• [7]Brewer NT, Fazekas KI: Predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability: A theory-informed, systematic review. Prev Med 2007, 45:107-114.
• [8]Hofman R, van Empelen P, Vogel I, Raat H, van Ballegooijen M, Korfage IJ: Parental decisional strategies regarding HPV vaccination before media debates: a focus group study. J Health Commun 2013, 18:866-880.
• [9]Constantine NA, Jerman P: Acceptance of human papillomavirus vaccination among californian parents of daughters: A representative statewide analysis. J Adolesc Health 2007, 40:108-115.
• [10]Dempsey AF, Zimet GD, Davis RL, Koutsky L: Factors that are associated with parental acceptance of human papillomavirus vaccines: a randomized intervention study of written information about HPV. Pediatrics 2006, 117:1486-1493.
• [11]Boehner CWP, Howe SRP, Bernstein DIMD, Rosenthal SLP: Viral sexually transmitted disease vaccine acceptability among college students. Sex Transm Dis 2003, 30:774-778.
• [12]Davis K, Dickman ED, Ferris D, Dias JK: Human papillomavirus vaccine acceptability among parents of 10- to 15-year-old adolescents. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2004, 8:188-194.
• [13]Friedman AL, Shepeard H: Exploring the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and communication preferences of the general public regarding HPV: findings from CDC focus group research and implications for practice. Health Educ Behav 2007, 34:471-485.
• [14]Zimet GD, Mays RM, Winston Y, Kee R, Dickes J, Su L: Acceptability of human papillomavirus immunization. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2000, 9:47-50.
• [15]Kaplan KJ: On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychol Bull 1972, 77(5):361-372.
• [16]Dormandy E, Hankins M, Marteau TM: Attitudes and uptake of a screening test: The moderating role of ambivalence. Psychol Health 2006, 21:499-511.
• [17]Ryan M, Gerard K: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003, 2:55-64.
• [18]De Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice experiment in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012, 21:145-172.
• [19]Brabin L, Roberts SA, Stretch R, Baxter D, Elton P, Kitchener H, McCann R: A survey of adolescent experiences of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Manchester study. Br J Cancer 2009, 101:1502-1504.
• [20]de Bekker-Grob EW, Hofman R, Donkers B, van Ballegooijen M, Helmerhorst TJ, Raat H, Korfage IJ: Girls’ preferences for HPV vaccination: A discrete choice experiment. Vaccine 2010, 28:6692-6697.
• [21]Ryan M: Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ 2004, 328:360-361.
• [22]Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH: Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
• [23]Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B: How to do (or not to do) … Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan 2009, 24:151-158.
• [24]Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health—a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 2011, 14:403-413.
• [25]Lancsar E, Louviere J: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26:661-677.
• [26]Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, Hossain I, Louviere JJ: What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ 2006, 25:520-537.
• [27]Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, Bradley M: Stated Preferences Techniques: A Guide To Practice. The Hague: Steer Davis Gleave and Hague Consulting Group; 1991.
• [28]Ratcliffe J, Bekker HL, Dolan P, Edlin R: Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 2009, 90:45-57.
• [29]Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, Chitty LS, Longworth L, Buxton MJ, Berlin C: Women and health care professionals’ preferences for Down’s Syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. Bjog 2004, 111:775-779.
• [30]Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM: Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:672-680.
• [31]Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A: Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:663-671.
• [32]Lancsar E, Louviere J: Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ 2006, 15:797-811.
• [33]Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V: Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ 2009, 18:321-336.
• [34]Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD: Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
• [35]Brown DS, Johnson FR, Poulos C, Messonnier ML: Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus. Vaccine 2009, 28:1702-1708.
• [36]van Lier EA, Oomen PJ, Zwakhals SLN, Drijfhout IH, de Hoogh PAAM, de Melker HE: Vaccinatiegraad Rijksvaccinatieprogramma Nederland: Verslagjaar 2010. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2010.
• [37]Roteli-Martins CM, Naud P, De Borba P, Teixeira JC, De Carvalho NS, Zahaf T, Sanchez N, Geeraerts B, Descamps D: Sustained immunogenicity and efficacy of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: up to 8.4 years of follow-up. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2012, 8:390-397.
• [38]Conner M, Sparks P: Ambivalence and attitudes. In European Review of Social Psychology. Volume 12. Edited by Stroebe W, Hewstone M. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2002:37-70.
• [39]Gerend MA, Weibley E, Bland H: Parental response to human papillomavirus vaccine availability: uptake and intentions. J Adolesc Health 2009, 45:528-531.
• [40]Reiter PL, Brewer NT, Gottlieb SL, McRee A-L, Smith JS: Parents’ health beliefs and HPV vaccination of their adolescent daughters. Soc Sci Med 2009, 69:475-480.
• [41]Gidman W, Elliott R, Payne K, Meakin GH, Moore J: A comparison of parents and pediatric anesthesiologists’ preferences for attributes of child daycase surgery: a discrete choice experiment. Paediatr Anaesth 2007, 17:1043-1052.