Student COVID-19 vaccination preferences in China: A discrete choice experiment

The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder preference evaluations are increasingly emphasized in healthcare policy and health technology assessment. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are the most common method for quantifying preferences among patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. While prior reviews (1990-2017) have examined DCE trends, no comprehensive synthesis exists for studies published since 2018. This updated review (2018-2023) provides critical insights into evolving methodologies and global trends in health-related DCEs.

METHODS

A systematic search (2018-2023) of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified relevant studies. Studies were screened for inclusion and data were extracted, including details on DCE design and analysis. To enable trend comparisons, the search strategy and extraction items aligned with previous reviews.

RESULTS

Of 2663 identified papers, 1279 met the inclusion criteria, reflecting a significant rise in published DCEs over time. DCEs were conducted globally, with a remarkable increase in publications from Asia and Africa compared with previous reviews. Experimental designs and econometric models have advanced, continuing prior trends. Notably, most recent DCEs were administered online.

DISCUSSION

The rapid growth of DCE applications underscores their importance in health research. While the methodology is advancing rapidly, it is crucial that researchers provide full transparency in reporting their methods, particularly in detailing experimental designs and validity tests, which are too often overlooked. Key recommendations include improving reporting of experimental designs, applying validity tests, following good practices for presenting benefit-risk attributes, and adopting open science practices. Ensuring methodological rigor will maximize the impact and reproducibility of DCE research in health economics.

Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

BACKGROUND

Vaccination can be viewed as comprising the most important defensive barriers to protect susceptible groups from infection. However, vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 is widespread worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review studies eliciting the COVID-19 vaccine preference using discrete choice experiments.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus platforms in April 2023. Search terms included discrete choice experiments, COVID-19, and vaccines and related synonyms. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed by factors such as high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries and study period (before, during, and after the pandemic wave). Quality appraisal was performed using the 5-item Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance checklist.

RESULTS

The search yield a total of 623 records, and 47 studies with 53 data points were finally included. Attributes were grouped into 4 categories: outcome, process, cost, and others. The vaccine effectiveness (21/53, 40%) and safety (7/53, 13%) were the most frequently reported and important attributes. Subgroup analyses showed that vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute, although the preference varied by subgroups. Compared to high-income countries (3/29, 10%), a higher proportion of low- and middle-income countries (4/24, 17%) prioritized safety. As the pandemic progressed, the duration of protection (2/24, 8%) during the pandemic wave and COVID-19 mortality risk (5/25, 20%) after the pandemic wave emerged as 2 of the most important attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review revealed the critical role of vaccine effectiveness and safety in COVID-19 vaccine preference. However, it should be noticed that preference heterogeneity was observed across subpopulations and may change over time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023422720; https://tinyurl.com/2etf7ny7.

The Public's Self-Avoidance and Other-Reliance in the Reporting of Medical Insurance Fraud: A Cross-Sectional Survey in China

Purpose

To understand the public's self-willingness to report medical insurance fraud and their expectations on others, to provide a reference for the government to do a good job in medical insurance anti-fraud.

Methods

Data were obtained from a questionnaire survey of 846 respondents in China. Descriptive statistical analyses and multinomial logistic regression were used to analyze the different subjective attitudes of the public toward different subjects when faced with medical insurance fraud and the influencing factors.

Results

511 (60.40%) respondents were willing to report medical insurance fraud, while 739 (87.35%) respondents expected others to report it. 485 (57.33%) respondents were willing and expected others to report medical insurance fraud, followed by those who were not willing but expected others to report it (254, 30.02%). Compared to those who were unwilling to report themselves and did not want others to report, those who believe their reporting is useless (OR=3.13, 95% CI=1.15-8.33) and those who fear for their safety after reporting (OR=2.96, 95% CI=1.66-5.26) were more likely to expect others to report. Self-reporting willingness was stronger among the public who were satisfied with the government's protective measures for the safety of whistleblowers (OR=4.43, 95% CI=1.38-14.17). The public who believe that both themselves and others have responsibilities to report medical insurance fraud were willing to report and expect others to do the same.

Conclusion

The public had a "self-avoidance" and "other-reliance" mentality in medical insurance anti-fraud. The free-rider mentality, lack of empathy, concerns about own risk after reporting, and the interference of decentralized responsibility were important factors contributing to this public mentality. At this stage, the government should prevent the public's "collective indifference" in medical insurance anti-fraud efforts. Improving the safety and protection of whistleblowers and making everyone feel more responsible and valued may be effective incentives to enhance the public's willingness to report.