When to be vaccinated? What to consider? Modelling decision-making and time preference for COVID-19 vaccine through a conjoint experiment approach
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
How do citizens choose COVID-19 vaccines, and when do they wish to be vaccinated? A choice-based conjoint experiment was fielded in Hong Kong to examine factors that shape citizens’ preference toward COVID-19 vaccines and their time preference to be vaccinated, which is overlooked in extant literature. Results suggest people are most concerned about vaccines’ efficacy and severe side-effects, and that cash incentives are not useful in enhancing vaccine appeal. The majority of respondents show low intention for immediate vaccination, and many of them want to delay their vaccination. Further analysis shows that their time preference is shaped more by respondent characteristics than vaccine attributes. In particular, confidence in the vaccine, trust in government, and working in high-risk professions are associated with earlier timing for vaccine uptake. Meanwhile, forced COVID testing would delay vaccination. The findings offer a novel view in understanding how people decide whether and when to receive new vaccines, which have pivotal implications for a head start of any mass vaccination programs.
Highlights
-
People are most concerned about vaccines’ efficacy and severe side-effects when choosing COVID-19 vaccines
-
Cash incentives are not useful in enhancing vaccines’ appeal
-
Time preference of vaccination is shaped more by respondent characteristics than vaccine attributes
-
Forced COVID testing might delay vaccination decision
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.05.21258416: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.05.21258416: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-