4.7 Article

The COVID-19 vaccination decision-making preferences of elderly people: a discrete choice experiment

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-32471-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used an offline Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to investigate the preference for COVID-19 vaccination among Chinese adults aged 50 years and above. The study found that the risk of adverse reactions and the protective duration were determinants of vaccination preference. Additionally, socio-demographic factors such as region, self-health assessment, and the number of vaccinated household members can strengthen or weaken the effects of vaccine attributes. Therefore, the preferences of the elderly population should be taken into account when developing COVID-19 vaccination programs in China.
COVID-19 is a continuing threat to global public health security. For elderly people, timely and effective vaccination reduces infection rates in this group and safeguards their health. This paper adopted an offline Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to research the preference for COVID-19 vaccination amongst Chinese adults aged 50 years and above. Through multinomial logistic regression analysis, our DCE leverages five attributes-the risk of adverse reactions, protective duration, injection doses, injection period, and effectiveness-each of which is split into three to four levels. The risk of adverse reaction and the protective duration were demonstrated to be determinants of vaccination preference. Moreover, it was found that socio demographic factors like region, self-health assessment and the number of vaccinated household members can strengthen or weaken the effects of vaccine attributes. In conclusion, the preferences of the elderly population should be considered when developing COVID-19 vaccination programs for this population in China. Accordingly, the results may provide useful information for policymakers to develop tailored, effectively vaccination strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据