Preference of young adults for COVID-19 vaccination in the United Kingdom: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To determine preferences for COVID-19 vaccinations in the young adult population in the United Kingdom (UK). METHOD: A discrete choice experiment survey was conducted in UK young adults. Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical vaccines the one they preferred the most. Vaccines were defined by five attributes (effectiveness, risk of side effects, duration of protection, number of doses, confidence in available evidence), identified following a systematic literature review and qualitative interviews with 13 young adults. A random parameters logit model, a latent class model, and subgroup analyses were used to identify preferences. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-nine respondents were included (70% women, mean age 23 years). All five attributes significantly influenced respondents' vaccination decisions. Respondents valued higher effectiveness, lower risk of side effects, longer protection duration, and a smaller number of doses. Based on the range of levels of each attribute, vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute (relative importance 34%), followed by risk of side effects (32%), and duration of vaccine protection (22%). CONCLUSIONS: The five investigated vaccine attributes appear to play an important role in young adults' decision-making process. Results of this study may help health authorities designing appropriate strategies in future vaccines campaigns in the younger UK population.

Estimating loss in capability wellbeing in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of the general adult population in the UK, Australia and the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate capability wellbeing lost from the general adult populations in the UK, Australia and the Netherlands in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated social restrictions, including lockdowns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional with recalled timepoints. SETTING: Online panels in the UK, Australia and the Netherlands conducted in February 2021 (data collected 26 January-2 March 2021). PARTICIPANTS: Representative general adult (≥ 18 years old) population samples in the UK (n = 1,017), Australia (n = 1,011) and the Netherlands (n = 1,017) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Participants completed the ICECAP-A capability wellbeing measure in February 2021, and for two recalled timepoints during the initial lockdowns in April 2020 and in February 2020 (prior to COVID-19 restrictions in all three countries). ICECAP-A scores on a 0-1 no capability-full capability scale were calculated for each timepoint. Societal willingness to pay estimates for a year of full capability (YFC) was used to place a monetary value associated with change in capability per person and per country. Paired t tests were used to compare changes in ICECAP-A and YFC from pre- to post-COVID-19-related restrictions in each country. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) loss of capability wellbeing during the initial lockdown was 0.100 (0.17) in the UK, 0.074 (0.17) in Australia and 0.049 (0.12) in the Netherlands. In February 2021, losses compared to pre-lockdown were 0.043 (0.14) in the UK, 0.022 (0.13) in Australia and 0.006 (0.11) in the Netherlands. In monetary terms, these losses were equivalent to £14.8 billion, AUD$8.6 billion and €2.1 billion lost per month in April 2020 and £6.4 billion, A$2.6 billion and €260 million per month in February 2021 for the UK, Australia and the Netherlands, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial losses in capability wellbeing in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research is required to understand the specific impact of particular COVID-19 restrictions on people's capabilities.

Valuation of Costs in Health Economics During Financial and Economic Crises: A Case Study from Lebanon.

In 2019, we embarked on a study on the economic burden of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Lebanon, in collaboration with a premier Lebanese MS center. This coincided with a triple disaster in Lebanon, comprising the drastic economic and financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the consequences of the explosion of Beirut's port. Specifically, the economic and financial turmoil made the valuation of costs challenging. Researchers could face similar challenges, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where economic crises and recessions are recurrent phenomena. This paper aims to discuss steps taken to overcome the fluctuation of the prices of resources to get a valid valuation of societal costs during times of a financial and economic crisis. In the absence of local costing data and guidelines for conducting cost-of-illness (COI) studies, this paper provides empirical recommendations on the valuation of costs that are particularly relevant in LMICs. We recommend (1) clear reporting and justification of the country-specific context, year of costing, assumptions, data sources, and valuation methods, as well as the indicators used to adjust cost for inflation during different periods of fluctuation of prices; (2) collecting prices of each resource from multiple and various sources; (3) conducting a sensitivity analysis; and (4) reporting costs in local currency and Purchasing Power Parity dollars (PPP$). Precision and transparency in reporting prices of resources and their sources are markers of the reliability of the COI studies.

Beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccinations of young adults in the United Kingdom: An interview study applying the Integrated Change Model.

INTRODUCTION: Young adults are considered one of the most hesitant groups towards getting vaccinated in the UK, which threatens the success of the vaccination program in ending the pandemic. Identifying and understanding the socio-cognitive beliefs is important to effectively design and implement health communication interventions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the underlying beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccinations among young adults in the UK. METHODS: The study consisted of online, one-on-one interviews with 18 individuals (6 males, 12 females) aged between 18 and 29 years, conducted in June 2021. The guiding theoretical framework was the I-Change Model. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were independently coded by two researchers by using the constructs of the I-Change Model. Belief statements were elicited from the codes and the frequency of belief statements was recorded and compared between intenders and non-intenders. RESULTS: Similar beliefs were observed in intenders and non-intenders for most constructs of the I-Change Model. However, non-intenders distinguished themselves from intenders by their higher perceived risks of side effects and higher perceived disadvantages of being vaccinated. Non-intenders expressed the belief that the risk of unknown or long-term side effects, such as blood clotting and impact on fertility, were the main reason for them not to be willing to vaccinate. In addition, in both groups, participants had mostly similar beliefs as their friends and family. CONCLUSION: This research provides insights in the specific beliefs of the young adult population of the UK regarding COVID-19 vaccinations, which could have implications for health communication interventions. The findings suggest that such interventions should focus on reducing the uncertainty regarding short- and long-term effects and potentially having a focus on the entire social environment of young adults.

Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments.

BACKGROUND: Choice-based experiments have been increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs. This study aims to systematically identify and examine choice-based experiments assessing (differences in) vaccine preferences of vaccinees, representatives and health advisors. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched on choice-based conjoint analysis studies or discrete choice experiments capturing vaccine preferences of children, adolescents, parents, adults and healthcare professionals for attributes of vaccines or vaccine settings up to September 2020. Data was extracted using a standardized form covering all important aspects of choice experiments. A quality assessment was used to assess the validity of studies. Attributes were categorized into outcome, process, cost and other. The importance of attributes was assessed by the frequency of reporting and statistical significance. Results were compared between high-quality studies and lower-quality studies. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies were included, with the majority conducted in high-income countries after 2010 (resp. n = 34 and n = 37). Preferences of representatives were studied in nearly half of the studies (47.6%), followed by vaccinees (35.7%) and health advisors (9.5%). Sixteen high-quality studies passed the quality assessment. Outcome- and cost- related attributes such as vaccine effectiveness, vaccine risk, cost and protection duration were most often statistically significant across both target groups, with vaccine effectiveness being the most important. Risks associated with vaccination, such as side effects, were more often statistically significant in studies targeting vaccinees, while cost-related attributes were more often statistically significant in studies of representatives. Process-related attributes such as vaccine accessibility and time were least important across both target groups. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review in which vaccine preferences of different target groups were assessed and compared. The same attributes were most important for vaccine decisions of vaccinees and representatives, with only minor differences in level of evidence for vaccine risk and cost. Future research on vaccine preferences of health advisors and/or among target groups in low-resource settings would give insight into the generalizability of current findings.

A Digital Innovation for the Personalized Management of Adherence: Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.

Introduction: Personalized medicine and management of adherence are potential solutions for the suboptimal use of medicines. Digital medication management innovations currently under development combine both aspects. This research aims to investigate facilitators for and barriers to the translation of digital innovations for personalized medicine and adherence management into clinical practice from the policymaker and regulator perspective. Methods: A mixed-method study was used combining a scoping review to identify main interests, semi-structured interviews (n = 5) with representatives of European health policymaking and regulatory organizations, and a supplementary literature review to investigate key subthemes. The SWOT analysis was used for the qualitative analysis. Results: The literature reviews and the qualitative interviews suggested that digital solutions can facilitate the personalized management of medications and improve quality and safety, especially as the openness for digital health solutions is increasing. Digital solutions may, on the other hand, add complexity to the treatment, which can be perceived as a potential barrier for their uptake. As more multidisciplinary and participative structures are emerging, digital solutions can promote the implementation of new services. Nevertheless, change progresses slowly in the task-oriented structures of health systems. Integration of digital solutions depends on all stakeholders' willingness and abilities to co-create this change. Patients have different capabilities to self-manage their medical conditions and use digital solutions. Personalization of digital health solutions and integration in existing service structures are crucial to ensure equality among population segments. Developments in the digital infrastructure, although they are partly slow and not well-aligned, enable the implementation of innovations in clinical practice leading to further advances in data generation and usage for future innovations. Discussion: This study suggests that digital solutions have the potential to facilitate high-quality medication management and improve adherence to medications, enable new service structures, and are essential to drive further innovations in health care. Nevertheless, increasing the self-responsibility of patients can have undesirable effects on health outcomes, especially within vulnerable population segments. Digital health solutions can be an opportunity to optimize the use of medicines and thus their efficiency. Well-conceived development and implementation processes are needed to also realize improvements in equality and solidarity within health systems.