Preferences for COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies in the US: A discrete choice survey

  1. Ingrid Eshun-Wilson
  2. Aaloke Mody
  3. Khai Hoan Tram
  4. Cory Bradley
  5. Alexander Sheve
  6. Branson Fox
  7. Vetta Thompson
  8. Elvin H. Geng

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the US has been immensely successful in vaccinating those who are receptive, further increases in vaccination rates however will require more innovative approaches to reach those who remain hesitant. Developing vaccination strategies that are modelled on what people want could further increase uptake.

Methods and findings

To inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies that are aligned with public preferences we conducted a discrete choice experiment among the US public (N = 2,895) between March 15 to March 22, 2021. We applied sampling weights, evaluated mean preferences using mixed logit models, and identified latent class preference subgroups. On average, the public prioritized ease, preferring single to two dose vaccinations (mean preference: -0.29; 95%CI: -0.37 to -0.20), vaccinating once rather than annually (mean preference: -0.79; 95%CI: -0.89 to -0.70) and reducing waiting times at vaccination sites. Vaccine enforcement reduced overall vaccine acceptance (mean preference -0.20; 95%CI: -0.30 to -0.10), with a trend of increasing resistance to enforcement with increasing vaccine hesitancy. Latent class analysis identified four distinct preference phenotypes: the first prioritized inherent “vaccine features” (46.1%), the second were concerned about vaccine “service delivery” (8.8%), a third group desired “social proof” of vaccine safety and were susceptible to enforcement (13.2%), and the fourth group were “indifferent” to vaccine and service delivery features and resisted enforcement (31.9%).

Conclusions

This study identifies several critical insights for the COVID-19 public health response. First, identifying preference segments is essential to ensure that vaccination services meet the needs of diverse population subgroups. Second, making vaccination easy and promoting autonomy by simplifying services and offering the public choices (where feasible) may increase uptake in those who remain deliberative. And, third vaccine mandates have the potential to increase vaccination rates in susceptible groups but may simultaneously promote control aversion and resistance in those who are most hesitant.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0256394
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.19.21257355: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    A further limitation of this study was the use of an online sample which may have influenced preferences for online vaccination appointment scheduling. Facilitating ease of vaccination by offering a choice of vaccine brands, vaccination locations and promoting voluntary vaccination, may be best aligned with public preferences for COVID-19 vaccination campaigns features. Several strategies to simplify vaccination processes are already being implemented by various state health departments - our nationally representative data support their use more broadly across the US. Our data further emphasize the potential risks of vaccination enforcement strategies, which could potentially undermine vaccination efforts in an individualistic society such as the US, where trust in the government is low and where vaccine hesitancy is closely associated with political alliances.

    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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.19.21257355v1 on medRxiv