Harapan Harapan1, Abram L Wagner2, Amanda Yufika3, Abdul M Setiawan4, Samsul Anwar5, Sri Wahyuni6, Febrivan W Asrizal7, Muhammad R Sufri8, Reza P Putra9, Nanda P Wijayanti10, Salwiyadi Salwiyadi11, Razi Maulana12, Afriyani Khusna13, Ina Nusrina14, Muhammad Shidiq15, Devi Fitriani16, Muharrir Muharrir9, Cut A Husna17, Fitria Yusri6, Reza Maulana9, Yogambigai Rajamoorthy18, David Alexander Groneberg19, Ruth Müller20, Mudatsir Mudatsir21. 1. Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia; Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia; Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia. Electronic address: harapan@unsyiah.ac.id. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia. 4. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University of Malang, Malang, East Java 65144, Indonesia. 5. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia. 6. Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Malikussaleh, Lhokseumawe, Aceh 24531, Indonesia. 7. Mohammad Natsir Hospital, Solok, West Sumatra 27361, Indonesia. 8. Banda Aceh Port Health Office, Ministry of Health, Aceh Besar, Aceh 23352, Indonesia. 9. Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia. 10. Sabang Hospital, Sabang, Aceh 23522, Indonesia. 11. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia. 13. Meuraxa Hospital, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23231, Indonesia. 14. Department of Health Service, District Health Office, Aceh Besar, Aceh 23912, Indonesia. 15. Nusa Jaya Community Health Center, Halmahera Timur, North Maluku 97863, Indonesia. 16. Teunom Community Health Center, Aceh Jaya, Aceh 23653, Indonesia. 17. Department of Microbiology, Universitas Malikussaleh, Lhokseumawe, Aceh 24531, Indonesia. 18. Department of Economics, Faculty of Accountancy and Management, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kajang, Selangor 43200, Malaysia. 19. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 20. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Unit of Medical Entomology, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. 21. Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia; Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia; Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A clinical trial is ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a monkeypox vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs). The critical question that needs to be addressed is whether HCWs are willing to accept and purchase this vaccine. The objective of this study was to evaluate the acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP) for the vaccine among HCWs. METHODS: From May to July 2019, a cross-sectional study was conducted among registered general practitioners (GPs) in Indonesia. A contingent valuation method was employed to evaluate the WTP. Besides acceptance and WTP, various explanatory variables were also collected and assessed. A logistic regression and a multivariable linear regression were used to explore the explanatory variables influencing acceptance and WTP, respectively. RESULTS: Among 407 respondents, 391 (96.0%) expressed acceptance of a free vaccination. The mean and median WTP was US$ 37.0(95%CI:US$ 32.76-US$ 41.23) and US$ 17.90(95%CI:US$ 17.90-US$ 17.90), respectively. In an unadjusted analysis, those 30 years old or younger had 2.94 times greater odds of vaccine acceptance compared to those who were older (95%CI: 1.07-8.08). Location of alma mater, type of workplace, length of individual medical experience, and monthly income of GPs were all significantly associated with WTP. CONCLUSION: Although the vast majority of GPs would accept a freely provided vaccine, they were also somewhat price sensitive. This finding indicates that partial subsidy maybe required to achieve high vaccine coverage, particularly among GPs at community health centres or those with a shorter duration of medical practice.
BACKGROUND: A clinical trial is ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a monkeypox vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs). The critical question that needs to be addressed is whether HCWs are willing to accept and purchase this vaccine. The objective of this study was to evaluate the acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP) for the vaccine among HCWs. METHODS: From May to July 2019, a cross-sectional study was conducted among registered general practitioners (GPs) in Indonesia. A contingent valuation method was employed to evaluate the WTP. Besides acceptance and WTP, various explanatory variables were also collected and assessed. A logistic regression and a multivariable linear regression were used to explore the explanatory variables influencing acceptance and WTP, respectively. RESULTS: Among 407 respondents, 391 (96.0%) expressed acceptance of a free vaccination. The mean and median WTP was US$ 37.0(95%CI:US$ 32.76-US$ 41.23) and US$ 17.90(95%CI:US$ 17.90-US$ 17.90), respectively. In an unadjusted analysis, those 30 years old or younger had 2.94 times greater odds of vaccine acceptance compared to those who were older (95%CI: 1.07-8.08). Location of alma mater, type of workplace, length of individual medical experience, and monthly income of GPs were all significantly associated with WTP. CONCLUSION: Although the vast majority of GPs would accept a freely provided vaccine, they were also somewhat price sensitive. This finding indicates that partial subsidy maybe required to achieve high vaccine coverage, particularly among GPs at community health centres or those with a shorter duration of medical practice.