目的:这项研究的目的是在讲法语的魁北克成年人群中引起对2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)疫苗活动的偏好,并强调疫苗活动的特点。
方法:2021年4月至6月在魁北克进行了离散选择实验(DCE),加拿大。按年龄划分的配额抽样方法,性别和教育水平被用来获得法语成人人口的代表性样本。基于选择的练习由疫苗活动场景中的七个属性描述。使用混合logit(MXL)模型和潜在类logit(LCL)模型来得出效用值。年龄,性别,教育水平,收入和对COVID-19的恐惧作为自变量纳入LCL。
结果:共包括1883名受访者进行分析,产生22,586个选择。从这些选择中,3425(15.16%)被拒绝。此外,1159(61.55%)个人始终接受任何疫苗接种运动,而92人(4.89%)总是拒绝疫苗替代品。根据MXL,属性的相对权重重要性是有效性(32.50%),副作用风险(24.76%),科学证据水平(22.51%),拍摄次数(15.73%),优先人群(3.60%),疫苗类型(0.61%),和接种地点(0.28%)。从LCL模型中导出了四个类,根据它们,属性或多或少是重要的。1级(19.8%)更关注效果(27.99%),安全性(24.22%)和射击次数(21.82%),2类(55.3%)想要高效疫苗(40.16%),3类(17.6%)对科学证据给予了很高的价值(42.00%).4类偏好(7.4%)更加平衡,每个属性的相对重量范围为1.84%(疫苗类型)至21.32%(副作用风险)。发现潜在类别的成员资格后验概率是由性别等个人因素预测的,年收入或对COVID-19的恐惧。
结论:疫苗接种的接受依赖于多种因素。这项研究允许通过基于选择的练习来评估疫苗接种特异性问题,并通过分割样本和绘制个体概况来描述影响这种选择的因素。此外,除了有效性和安全性,这项研究的一个主要观点是表明普通人群对疫苗相关科学证据水平的重要性。
■一小群公民参与了这个概念,数据的设计和解释。DCE的参与者均来自普通人群。
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to elicit
preferences about the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine campaign in the general French-speaking adult Quebec population and to highlight the characteristics of the vaccine campaign that were of major importance.
METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted between April and June 2021, in Quebec, Canada. A quota sampling method by age, gender and educational level was used to achieve a representative sample of the French-speaking adult population. The choice-based exercise was described by seven attributes within a vaccine campaign scenario. A mixed logit (MXL) model and a latent class logit (LCL) model were used to derive utility values. Age, gender, educational level, income and fear of COVID-19 were included as independent variables in the LCL.
RESULTS: A total of 1883 respondents were included for analysis, yielding 22,586 choices. From these choices, 3425 (15.16%) were refusals. In addition, 1159 (61.55%) individuals always accepted any of the vaccination campaigns, while 92 individuals (4.89%) always refused vaccine alternatives. According to the MXL, relative weight importance of attributes was effectiveness (32.50%), risk of side effects (24.76%), level of scientific evidence (22.51%), number of shots (15.73%), priority population (3.60%), type of vaccine (0.61%), and vaccination location (0.28%). Four classes were derived from the LCL model and attributes were more or less important according to them. Class 1 (19.8%) was more concerned about the effectiveness (27.99%), safety (24.22%) and the number of shots (21.82%), class 2 (55.3%) wanted a highly effective vaccine (40.16%) and class 3 (17.6%) gave high value to the scientific evidence (42.00%). Class 4
preferences (7.4%) were more balanced, with each attribute having a relative weight ranging from 1.84% (type of vaccine) to 21.32% (risk of side effects). Membership posterior probabilities to latent classes were found to be predicted by individual factors such as gender, annual income or fear of COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination acceptance relies on multiple factors. This study allowed assessment of vaccination-specific issues through a choice-based exercise and description of factors influencing this choice by segmenting the sample and drawing profiles of individuals. Moreover, besides effectiveness and safety, a major point of this study was to show the importance given by the general population to the level of scientific evidence surrounding vaccines.
UNASSIGNED: A small group of citizens was involved in the conception, design and interpretation of data. Participants of the DCE were all from the general population.