Optimising HPV vaccination communication to adolescents: A discrete choice experiment |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Unité de Recherche et d’Expertise Epidémiologie des maladies émergentes, Institut Pasteur, 25 rue du Dr Roux 75724 Paris cedex 15, France;2. LIRAES (EA 4470), University of Paris, Paris, France;3. EHESP Rennes, Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France;4. Unité des Virus Emergents (UVE: Aix-Marseille Univ – IRD 190 – Inserm 1207 – IHU Méditerranée Infection), Marseille, France;5. Santé publique France, Saint-Maurice, France;6. GIMAP: groupe Immunité des Muqueuses et Agents Pathogènes, EA 3064, Université Jean Monnet, Université de Lyon, Saint-Etienne, France;7. Chaire PREVacCI Prévention, Vaccination et Contrôle de l’Infection, Institut PRESAGE, Université Jean Monnet, Université de Lyon, Saint-Etienne, France;8. Centre Régional de Coordination des Dépistages des cancers-Pays de la Loire, Angers, France;9. Université Grenoble Alpes, LIP/PC2S, EA 4145 Grenoble, France;10. HESPER EA7425, Saint-Etienne-Lyon University, Saint-Etienne, France;11. CIC-INSERM 1408, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France;12. Université de Paris, ECEVE, Paris, France;13. Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôtel Dieu, URC Eco Ile-de-France/Hôpital Robert Debré, Unité d’épidémiologie clinique, Paris, France;14. INSERM, ECEVE, UMR 1123, Paris, France;15. Université de Tours, Université de Nantes, INSERM, SPHERE U1246, Tours, France, INSERM CIC 1415, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France;p. Université de Lorraine, APEMAC, Nancy, France;q. Université de Lorraine, CHRU-Nancy, Département Méthodologie, Promotion, Investigation, Nancy, France |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundHuman Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine coverage in France is below 30%, despite proven effectiveness against HPV infections and (pre-)cancerous cervical lesions. To optimise vaccine promotion among adolescents, we used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to identify optimal statements regarding a vaccination programme, including vaccine characteristics.MethodsGirls and boys enrolled in the last two years of five middle schools in three French regions (aged 13–15 years) participated in an in-class cross-sectional self-administered internet-based study. In ten hypothetical scenarios, participants decided for or against signing up for a school-based vaccination campaign against an unnamed disease. Scenarios included different levels of four attributes: the type of vaccine-preventable disease, communication on vaccine safety, potential for indirect protection, and information on vaccine uptake among peers. One scenario was repeated with an added mention of sexual transmission.ResultsThe 1,458 participating adolescents (estimated response rate: 89.4%) theoretically accepted vaccination in 80.1% of scenarios. All attributes significantly impacted theoretical vaccine acceptance. Compared to a febrile respiratory disease, protection against cancer was motivating (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95%-CI 1.09–1.52]), but not against genital warts (OR 0.91 [0.78–1.06]). Compared to risk negation (“vaccine does not provoke serious side effects”), a reference to a positive benefit-risk balance despite a confirmed side effect was strongly dissuasive (OR 0.30 [0.24–0.36]), while reference to ongoing international pharmacovigilance without any scientifically confirmed effect was not significantly dissuasive (OR 0.86 [0.71–1.04]). The potential for indirect protection motivated acceptance among girls but not boys (potential for eliminating the disease compared to no indirect protection, OR 1.57 [1.25–1.96]). Compared to mentioning “insufficient coverage”, reporting that “>80% of young people in other countries got vaccinated” motivated vaccine acceptance (OR 1.94 [1.61–2.35]). The notion of sexual transmission did not influence acceptance.ConclusionHPV vaccine communication to adolescents can be tailored to optimise the impact of promotion efforts. |
| |
| Keywords: | HPV Vaccine acceptance Discrete choice experiment France Adolescents Communication |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
