PURPOSE: To measure adolescent girls' preferences over features of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in order to provide quantitative estimates of the perceived benefits of vaccination and potential vaccine uptake. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was developed to measure adolescent girls' preferences over features of HPV vaccines. The survey was fielded to a U.S. sample of 307 girls aged 13-17 years who had not yet received an HPV vaccine in June 2008. FINDINGS: In a latent class logit model, two distinct groups were identified--one with strong preferences against vaccination which largely did not differentiate between vaccine features, and another that was receptive to vaccination and had well-defined preferences over vaccine features. Based on the mean estimates over the entire sample, we estimate that girls' valuation of bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines ranged between $400 and $460 in 2008, measured as willingness-to-pay (WTP). The additional value of genital warts protection was $145, although cervical cancer efficacy was the most preferred feature. We estimate maximum uptake of 54-65%, close to the 53% reported for one dose in 2011 surveillance data, but higher than the 35% for three doses in surveillance data. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: We conclude that adolescent girls do form clear opinions and some place significant value on HPV vaccination, making research on their preferences vital to understanding the determinants of HPV vaccine demand. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: DCE studies may be used to design more effective vaccine-promotion programs and for reassessing public health recommendations and guidelines as new vaccines are made available.
PURPOSE: To measure adolescent girls' preferences over features of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in order to provide quantitative estimates of the perceived benefits of vaccination and potential vaccine uptake. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was developed to measure adolescent girls' preferences over features of HPV vaccines. The survey was fielded to a U.S. sample of 307 girls aged 13-17 years who had not yet received an HPV vaccine in June 2008. FINDINGS: In a latent class logit model, two distinct groups were identified--one with strong preferences against vaccination which largely did not differentiate between vaccine features, and another that was receptive to vaccination and had well-defined preferences over vaccine features. Based on the mean estimates over the entire sample, we estimate that girls' valuation of bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines ranged between $400 and $460 in 2008, measured as willingness-to-pay (WTP). The additional value of genital warts protection was $145, although cervical cancer efficacy was the most preferred feature. We estimate maximum uptake of 54-65%, close to the 53% reported for one dose in 2011 surveillance data, but higher than the 35% for three doses in surveillance data. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: We conclude that adolescent girls do form clear opinions and some place significant value on HPV vaccination, making research on their preferences vital to understanding the determinants of HPV vaccine demand. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: DCE studies may be used to design more effective vaccine-promotion programs and for reassessing public health recommendations and guidelines as new vaccines are made available.
Authors: Giovanna Elisa Calabro'; Elettra Carini; Alessia Tognetto; Irene Giacchetta; Ester Bonanno; Marco Mariani; Walter Ricciardi; Chiara de Waure Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Suzana Karim; Benjamin M Craig; Caroline Vass; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.558
Authors: Carol Mansfield; Donatus U Ekwueme; Florence K L Tangka; Derek S Brown; Judith Lee Smith; Gery P Guy; Chunyu Li; Brett Hauber Journal: Patient Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Liana Fraenkel; Joseph Lim; Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao; Valerie Reyna; Alexander Monto; John F P Bridges Journal: Patient Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.481