Understanding influencing attributes of COVID-19 vaccine preference and willingness-to-pay among Chinese and American middle-aged and elderly adults: A discrete choice experiment and propensity score matching study

Background and objective COVID-19 has imposed burdens on public health systems globally. Owing to the urgency of vaccination, this study aimed at comparing the differences in preference and willingness to pay of COVID-19 vaccine among Chinese and American middle-aged and elderly adults. Methods A cross-sectional survey containing demographic questions, rating their acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination with and without recommendations from friends, family members or employers (the social cues referred to in our study), and a discrete choice experiment understanding COVID-19 vaccine preference and willingness to pay was conducted to collect data. Propensity score matching was utilized to adjust confounding factors of baseline characteristics and the relative importance of respondents' preference for each attribute and its level was estimated using a conditional logit model. Then, willingness to pay was calculated. Results In total, 3,494 (2,311 and 1,183 from China and the United States, respectively) completed the questionnaire, among which 3,444 questionnaires were effective. After propensity score matching, 1,604 respondents with 802 from the US and 802 from China were included. Under the influence of the social cues, Chinese respondents' vaccine acceptance decreased from 71.70 to 70.70%, while American respondents' vaccine acceptance increased from 74.69 to 75.81%. The discrete choice experiment showed that American respondents regarded the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine as the most important attribute, whereas Chinese respondents attached the highest importance to the cost of vaccination. But overall, the COVID-19 vaccine with the higher efficacy, the milder adverse effect, the lower cost, and the longer duration will promote the preference of the public in both countries. Additionally, the public were willing to spend the most money for a reduction in COVID-19 vaccine adverse effect from moderate to very mild (37.476USD for the United States, 140.503USD for China), followed by paying for the 1% improvement in its efficacy and paying for the one-month extension of its duration. Conclusion Given the impact of social cues on vaccine acceptance, Chinese government should promote reasonable vaccine-related information to improve national vaccination acceptance. Meanwhile, considering the influence of COVID-19 attributes on public preference and willingness to pay, regulating the vaccine pricing, improving the efficacy of the vaccine, reducing its adverse effect, and prolonging the duration of the vaccine works will contribute to vaccine uptake.

[1]  J. Ling,et al.  COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance and Its Associated Factors Among the Iraqi Population: A Cross Sectional Study , 2022, Patient preference and adherence.

[2]  Vijay K. Sharma,et al.  Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination and willingness to pay: comparison of people with and without mental disorders in China , 2021, BJPsych Open.

[3]  D. Bhagianadh,et al.  COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The Role of Information Sources , 2021, Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society.

[4]  M. Aria,et al.  COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a survey in a population highly compliant to common vaccinations , 2021, Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics.

[5]  N. Stenseth,et al.  Associations between changes in population mobility in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and socioeconomic factors at the city level in China and country level worldwide: a retrospective, observational study , 2021, The Lancet Digital Health.

[6]  Arcadio A. Cerda,et al.  Authors’ Reply to Sprengholz and Betsch: “Willingness to Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine” , 2021, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

[7]  Arcadio A. Cerda,et al.  Hesitation and Refusal Factors in Individuals' Decision-Making Processes Regarding a Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination , 2021, Frontiers in Public Health.

[8]  T. Liu,et al.  A Comparison of Vaccine Hesitancy of COVID-19 Vaccination in China and the United States , 2021, medRxiv.

[9]  H. Harapan,et al.  Disruption of childhood vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia , 2021, Narra J.

[10]  M. Jimba,et al.  Identifying the causal effect of child marriage on unmet needs for modern contraception and unintended pregnancy in Nepal: a cross-sectional study using propensity score matching , 2021, BMJ Open.

[11]  P. Bhardwaj,et al.  Adverse Events Reported From COVID-19 Vaccine Trials: A Systematic Review , 2021, Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry.

[12]  G. Troiano,et al.  Vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19 , 2021, Public Health.

[13]  P. Rojas-Pérez-Ezquerra,et al.  Safety of new MRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19 in Severe Allergic Patients. , 2021, Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology.

[14]  Jiahao Wang,et al.  Willingness to pay and financing preferences for COVID-19 vaccination in China , 2021, Vaccine.

[15]  Jiahao Wang,et al.  The Changing Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination in Different Epidemic Phases in China: A Longitudinal Study , 2021, Vaccines.

[16]  Arcadio A. Cerda,et al.  Willingness to Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine , 2021, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

[17]  Ariana Remmel COVID vaccines and safety: what the research says , 2021, Nature.

[18]  M. Jit,et al.  Challenges in ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines: production, affordability, allocation, and deployment , 2021, The Lancet.

[19]  Dingmei Zhang,et al.  Willingness to Receive SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Associated Factors among Chinese Adults: A Cross Sectional Survey , 2021, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[20]  P. Roy,et al.  Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine candidate appears safe and effective , 2021, The Lancet.

[21]  Jerome H. Kim,et al.  Looking beyond COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trials , 2021, Nature Medicine.

[22]  J. Khubchandani,et al.  COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in the United States: A Rapid National Assessment , 2021, Journal of Community Health.

[23]  Nguyen H. Tran,et al.  Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK , 2020, Lancet.

[24]  D. Hartfiel,et al.  Understanding , 2003, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[25]  Cheryl Lin,et al.  Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review , 2020, Vaccines.

[26]  G. Koh Faculty Opinions recommendation of Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK , 2020, Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature.

[27]  E. Thomson,et al.  Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older people , 2020, Age and ageing.

[28]  Jie Chang,et al.  Parental preferences for HPV vaccination in junior middle school girls in China: A discrete choice experiment. , 2020, Vaccine.

[29]  K. Chu,et al.  Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18–59 years: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 clinical trial , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[30]  Arcadio A. Cerda,et al.  Acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine: A multifactorial consideration , 2020, Vaccine.

[31]  Philip Smith,et al.  Report 33: Modelling the allocation and impact of a COVID-19 vaccine , 2020 .

[32]  Jamie L. Jensen,et al.  Influences on Attitudes Regarding Potential COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States , 2020, Vaccines.

[33]  M. Pennell,et al.  Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated? , 2020, Vaccine.

[34]  T. Roberts,et al.  Understanding parent preferences for NHS paediatric allergy services , 2020, Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

[35]  W. Brouwer,et al.  Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 , 2020, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[36]  P. Flowers,et al.  Towards intervention development to increase the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among those at high risk: outlining evidence-based and theoretically informed future intervention content , 2020, medRxiv.

[37]  S. McFadden,et al.  Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US , 2020, EClinicalMedicine.

[38]  Eun Ji Kim,et al.  Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. , 2020, JAMA.

[39]  Zacharias E. Andreadakis,et al.  The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape , 2020, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[40]  C. Whittaker,et al.  Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[41]  D. Falci,et al.  Clinical Characteristics of Covid-19 in China. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[42]  L. Matrajt,et al.  Vaccine optimization for COVID-19: Who to vaccinate first? , 2020, Science Advances.

[43]  G. Gao,et al.  A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[44]  S. Lo,et al.  A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster , 2020, The Lancet.

[45]  Y. Hu,et al.  Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China , 2020, The Lancet.

[46]  Lihua Fan,et al.  Psychological depletion in physicians and nurses exposed to workplace violence: A cross-sectional study using propensity score analysis. , 2019, International journal of nursing studies.

[47]  R. Kennedy,et al.  Immunosenescence and human vaccine immune responses , 2019, Immunity & Ageing.

[48]  L. Morey,et al.  Who Are the Turkers? A Characterization of MTurk Workers Using the Personality Assessment Inventory , 2019, Assessment.

[49]  Mark M. Davis,et al.  A clinically meaningful metric of immune age derived from high-dimensional longitudinal monitoring , 2019, Nature Medicine.

[50]  Alan R. Ellis,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[51]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Comparison of Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Cardiovascular Risk Factors in China and the United States , 2018, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[52]  S. Klein,et al.  Sex and Gender Differences in the Outcomes of Vaccination over the Life Course. , 2017, Annual review of cell and developmental biology.

[53]  S. Anticoli,et al.  The influence of sex and gender on immunity, infection and vaccination. , 2016, Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita.

[54]  Benjamin Gardner Sood,et al.  Discrete choice experiment , 2015 .

[55]  Bas Donkers,et al.  Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide , 2015, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[56]  Stavros Petrou,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature , 2014, PharmacoEconomics.

[57]  Heidi J Larson,et al.  Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007-2012. , 2014, Vaccine.

[58]  Stephanie T. Lanza,et al.  Drawing Causal Inferences Using Propensity Scores: A Practical Guide for Community Psychologists , 2013, American journal of community psychology.

[59]  Jérôme Hugues,et al.  Model‐Based Analysis , 2013 .

[60]  È. Dubé,et al.  Vaccine hesitancy , 2013, Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics.

[61]  J. Lord The effect of aging of the immune system on vaccination responses , 2013, Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics.

[62]  Maja O’Connor LONGITUDINAL STUDY , 2013 .

[63]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[64]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[65]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[66]  J. Habbema,et al.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment , 2010, British Journal of Cancer.

[67]  Pedagógia,et al.  Cross Sectional Study , 2019 .

[68]  P. Mahadevan,et al.  An overview , 2007, Journal of Biosciences.

[69]  D. Holdstock Past, present--and future? , 2005, Medicine, conflict, and survival.

[70]  A. R.,et al.  Review of literature , 1951, American Potato Journal.

[71]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare , 2002, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[72]  Olivia Freeman,et al.  Talking points personal outcomes approach: practical guide. , 2012 .

[73]  Calmet Meteorological Model A User's Guide for the , 1999 .

[74]  Martin Prince,et al.  The cross-sectional survey , 1998 .

[75]  M. Driscoll,et al.  What Research Says. , 1984 .

[76]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[77]  H. Johnson,et al.  A comparison of 'traditional' and multimedia information systems development practices , 2003, Inf. Softw. Technol..