Choice preference and willingness to pay for COVID-19 vaccination in Namibia.

Background: Namibia has not been spared from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and as intervention the Namibian government has rolled out vaccination programmes. This study was conducted before the roll out of these vaccines to assess the preference for COVID-19 vaccinations. Stated preference studies provide information about social demand, access, willingness-to-pay and financing for future COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A stated choice experiment (SCE) survey was administered to a sample of 506 participants from Namibia's general population between October 2020 and December 2020. Participants were asked to make a series of hypothetical choices and estimate their preference for different attributes of a vaccine. A latent class model was used to analyse the SCE data. The study also assessed anti-vaccination behaviour, past vaccination behaviour, impacts of COVID-19 on mental and physical health and Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) measures. The WTP measures were captured as out-of-pocket and further calculated using the marginal rate of substitution method in SCE. Results: Data from 269 participants was included in the analysis. Vaccine side effects (40.065), population coverage (4.688), payment fee to receive vaccine immediately (3.733) were the top three influential attributes for vaccine preferences. Accordingly, increases in mild and severe side effects of vaccine options had negative impacts on utility; with an average WTP of N$728.26 to reduce serious side effects. The average WTP to receive a high-quality vaccine with 90% efficient was found to be N$233.11 (US$15.14). Across classes, there was a strong preference for vaccines with high effectiveness over longer durations of time. Conclusions: The results provide useful information for the Namibian government to improve the current strategies for vaccine rollout interventions.

Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples.

BACKGROUND: As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge, there is a need to scale up testing to minimize transmission of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many countries especially those in the developing world continue to struggle with scaling up reverse transcriptase polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 due to scarcity of resources. Alternatives such as antigen rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) may provide a solution to enable countries scale up testing. METHODS: In this study, we evaluated the Panbio™ and STANDARD Q Ag-RDTs in the laboratory using 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR confirmed and 80 negative nasopharyngeal swabs. The STANDARD Q was further evaluated in the field on 112 symptomatic and 61 asymptomatic participants. RESULTS: For the laboratory evaluation, both tests had a sensitivity above 80% (Panbio™ = 86% vs STANDARD Q = 88%). The specificity of the Panbio™ was 100%, while that of the STANDARD Q was 99%. When evaluated in the field, the STANDARD Q maintained a high specificity of 99%, however the sensitivity was reduced to 56%. CONCLUSION: Using Ag-RDTs in low resource settings will be helpful in scaling-up SARS-CoV-2 testing, however, negative results should be confirmed by RT-PCR where possible to rule out COVID-19 infection.

The path towards herd immunity: Predicting COVID-19 vaccination uptake through results from a stated choice study across six continents.

Despite unprecedented progress in developing COVID-19 vaccines, global vaccination levels needed to reach herd immunity remain a distant target, while new variants keep emerging. Obtaining near universal vaccine uptake relies on understanding and addressing vaccine resistance. Simple questions about vaccine acceptance however ignore that the vaccines being offered vary across countries and even population subgroups, and differ in terms of efficacy and side effects. By using advanced discrete choice models estimated on stated choice data collected in 18 countries/territories across six continents, we show a substantial influence of vaccine characteristics. Uptake increases if more efficacious vaccines (95% vs 60%) are offered (mean across study areas = 3.9%, range of 0.6%-8.1%) or if vaccines offer at least 12 months of protection (mean across study areas = 2.4%, range of 0.2%-5.8%), while an increase in severe side effects (from 0.001% to 0.01%) leads to reduced uptake (mean = -1.3%, range of -0.2% to -3.9%). Additionally, a large share of individuals (mean = 55.2%, range of 28%-75.8%) would delay vaccination by 3 months to obtain a more efficacious (95% vs 60%) vaccine, where this increases further if the low efficacy vaccine has a higher risk (0.01% instead of 0.001%) of severe side effects (mean = 65.9%, range of 41.4%-86.5%). Our work highlights that careful consideration of which vaccines to offer can be beneficial. In support of this, we provide an interactive tool to predict uptake in a country as a function of the vaccines being deployed, and also depending on the levels of infectiousness and severity of circulating variants of COVID-19.

The path towards herd immunity: Predicting COVID-19 vaccination uptake through results from a stated choice study across six continents

Despite unprecedented progress in developing COVID-19 vaccines, global vaccination levels needed to reach herd immunity remain a distant target, while new variants keep emerging. Obtaining near universal vaccine uptake relies on understanding and addressing vaccine resistance. Simple questions about vaccine acceptance however ignore that the vaccines being offered vary across countries and even population subgroups, and differ in terms of efficacy and side effects. By using advanced discrete choice models estimated on stated choice data collected in 18 countries/territories across six continents, we show a substantial influence of vaccine characteristics. Uptake increases if more efficacious vaccines (95% vs 60%) are offered (mean across study areas = 3.9%, range of 0.6%–8.1%) or if vaccines offer at least 12 months of protection (mean across study areas = 2.4%, range of 0.2%–5.8%), while an increase in severe side effects (from 0.001% to 0.01%) leads to reduced uptake (mean = −1.3%, range of −0.2% to −3.9%). Additionally, a large share of individuals (mean = 55.2%, range of 28%–75.8%) would delay vaccination by 3 months to obtain a more efficacious (95% vs 60%) vaccine, where this increases further if the low efficacy vaccine has a higher risk (0.01% instead of 0.001%) of severe side effects (mean = 65.9%, range of 41.4%–86.5%). Our work highlights that careful consideration of which vaccines to offer can be beneficial. In support of this, we provide an interactive tool to predict uptake in a country as a function of the vaccines being deployed, and also depending on the levels of infectiousness and severity of circulating variants of COVID-19.