Willingness to get vaccinated against influenza, pneumococcal disease, pertussis, and herpes zoster - A pre-COVID-19 exploration among the older adult population.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at increased risk for adverse health outcomes when having an influenza, pneumococcal disease, pertussis, or herpes zoster infection. Despite the ability of vaccinations to prevent these adverse outcomes, vaccination coverage is low in the European Union. This study aimed to explore the sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related characteristics associated with vaccination willingness for these vaccine-preventable diseases. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from wave 6 (years 2013-2017) of the population-based Doetinchem Cohort Study was analysed, with 3063 participants aged 46-86 years included. The outcome was the self-reported willingness to get vaccinated against influenza, pneumococcal disease, pertussis, and herpes zoster (willing, neutral, not willing). Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate the socio-demographic, lifestyle and health characteristics associated with vaccination willingness. RESULTS: For influenza 36 % was willing to get vaccinated, 35 % was neutral and 28 % was not willing to get vaccinated. The willingness to get vaccinated for the relatively unfamiliar vaccine-preventable diseases was lower: 26 % for pneumococcal disease (neutral: 50 %, not willing: 23 %), 26 % for pertussis (neutral 53 %, not willing: 22 %), and 23 % for herpes zoster (neutral 54 %, not willing: 24 %). A relative lower willingness was found among those 46-64 years old (compared to those 65 years or older). Women, having a high SES, being employed and having a good health were all associated with lower willingness to get vaccinated, which was the case for all vaccine-preventable diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults were generally more willing to get vaccinated against influenza than for the three less familiar diseases. Characteristics of those less willing may be used to improve strategies to increase vaccination coverage. Additional studies are needed to investigate the willingness to get vaccinated during and after the COVID-19 pandemic that may have changed the feel of urgency for vaccination.

If you were a policymaker, which treatment would you disinvest? A participatory value evaluation on public preferences for active disinvestment of health care interventions in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, it is not known what attributes of health care interventions citizens consider important in disinvestment decision-making (i.e. decisions to discontinue reimbursement). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the preferences of citizens of the Netherlands toward the relative importance of attributes of health care interventions in the context of disinvestment. METHODS: A participatory value evaluation (PVE) was conducted in April and May 2020. In this PVE, 1143 Dutch citizens were asked to save at least €100 million by selecting health care interventions for disinvestment from a list of eight unlabeled health care interventions, described solely with attributes. A portfolio choice model was used to analyze participants' choices. RESULTS: Participants preferred to disinvest health care interventions resulting in smaller gains in quality of life and life expectancy that are provided to older patient groups. Portfolios (i.e. combinations of health care interventions) resulting in smaller savings were preferred for disinvestment over portfolios with larger savings. CONCLUSION: The disinvestment of health care interventions resulting in smaller health gains and that are targeted at older patient groups is likely to receive most public support. By incorporating this information in the selection of candidate interventions for disinvestment and the communication on disinvestment decisions, policymakers may increase public support for disinvestment.

Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain public support for the active disinvestment (i.e. policy decision to stop reimbursement) of healthcare interventions, it is important to have insight in what the public thinks about disinvestment and which considerations they find relevant in this context. Currently, evidence on relevant considerations in the disinvestment context is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the societal views in the Netherlands on the active disinvestment of healthcare interventions and obtain insight into the considerations that are relevant for those holding the different views. METHODS: A Q-methodology study was conducted among a purposively selected sample of citizens (n = 43). Data were collected in June and July 2019. Participants individually ranked a set of 43 statements broadly covering the issues that participants could consider relevant in the disinvestment context, from 'least agree' to 'most agree'. Qualitative feedback on the statement ranking was collected from each participant using a questionnaire. Principal component analysis followed by oblimin rotation was used to identify clusters of participants with similar statement rankings. These clusters/factors were interpreted as distinct viewpoints using the factor arrays and qualitative questionnaire responses of participants. RESULTS: Four viewpoints were identified. People holding viewpoint I believe that reimbursement of necessary healthcare should be maintained, irrespective of its costs. People holding viewpoint II agree with viewpoint I, although they believe that necessity should be objectively determined. People holding viewpoint III think that unnecessary, ineffective and inefficient healthcare should be disinvested. People holding viewpoint IV, consider it most important that disinvestment decision-making processes are transparent and consistent. CONCLUSION: Insight in the distinct viewpoints identified in this study contributes to a better understanding of why it has been considered difficult to obtain public support for disinvestment of healthcare interventions, and can help policymakers to change their approach to disinvestment to increase public support.