@article{fdi:010070066,
  title = {{Q}uantifying population preferences around vaccination against severe but rare diseases : a conjoint analysis among {F}rench university students, 2016},
  author = {{S}eanehia, {J}. and {T}reibich, {C}. and {H}olmberg, {C}. and {M}uller-{N}ordhorn, {J}. and {C}asin, {V}. and {R}aude, {J}ocelyn and {M}ueller, {J}. {E}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{B}ackground: {S}everal concepts are available to explain vaccine decision making by individual and inter-individual factors, including risk perception, social conformism and altruism. {H}owever, only a few studies have quantified the weight of these determinants in vaccine acceptance. {U}sing a conjoint analysis tool, we aimed at eliciting preferences in a student population regarding vaccination against a rare, severe and rapidly evolving hypothetical disease, similar to meningococcal serogroup {C} meningitis or measles. {M}ethods: {D}uring {M}arch-{M}ay 2016, we conducted an emailing survey among university students aged 18-24 years ({N} = 775) in {R}ennes, {F}rance. {P}articipants were asked to decide for or against immediate vaccination in 24 hypothetical scenarios, containing various levels of four attributes: epidemic situation, adverse events, information on vaccination coverage, and potential for indirect protection. {D}ata were analysed using random effect estimator logit models. {R}esults: {P}articipants accepted on average 52% of scenarios and all attributes significantly impacted vaccination acceptance. {T}he highest positive effects were seen with an epidemic situation ({OR} 3.81, 95%-{CI} 3.46-4.19), 90% coverage in the community (3.64, 3.15-4.20) and potential for disease elimination from the community (2.87, 2.53-3.26). {I}nformation on "insufficient coverage" was dissuasive (vs. none of friends vaccinated: 0.65, 0.56-0.75). {C}ontroversy had a significantly greater negative effect than a confirmed risk of severe adverse events ({OR} 0.05 vs. 0.22). {I}n models including participant characteristics, preference weights were unchanged, while trust in health authorities and vaccination perceptions strongly influenced acceptance themselves. {T}he greatest significant variation of preference weights between subgroups was observed with controversy among students using alternative medicine daily ({OR} 0.28) and among students relying on scientific vaccine information ({OR} 0.02). {C}onclusions: {A}mong young adults, potential for indirect protection and factual information on coverage in the community and potential side effects positively impact theoretical vaccine acceptance. {C}onjoint analyses should be conducted to understand vaccine hesitancy in specific vaccination programs.},
  keywords = {{C}onjoint analysis ; {D}iscrete choice experiment ; {V}accine acceptance ; {V}accine hesitancy ; {M}eningococcal vaccine ; {M}easles vaccine ; {FRANCE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{V}accine},
  volume = {35},
  numero = {20},
  pages = {2676--2684},
  ISSN = {0264-410{X}},
  year = {2017},
  DOI = {10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.03.086},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010070066},
}