Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLasseter, Gemma
dc.contributor.authorAl-Janabi, Hareth
dc.contributor.authorTrotter, Caroline
dc.contributor.authorCarroll, Fran E
dc.contributor.authorChristensen, Hannah
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-10T22:15:22Z
dc.date.available2018-09-10T22:15:22Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/280018
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Decisions regarding which vaccines are funded in the United Kingdom (UK) are increasingly informed by cost-effectiveness analyses. Such analyses use Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as a measure of effectiveness and assume that QALYs are equal regardless of where and in whom they occur in the population. However, there is increasing debate about whether this QALY approach is appropriate and whether societal preferences for childhood vaccinations should be used to help inform childhood immunisation policy. OBJECTIVE: To gauge the general public's preferences for prioritising certain characteristics of childhood vaccination, to help inform future policy making decisions in the UK. DESIGN: Qualitative design using individual face-to-face interviews, with data analysed using an inductive thematic framework approach. SETTING: Two counties in England, UK. POPULATION: Adult members of the general public were recruited using the Bristol and South Gloucestershire open electoral registers, using gender and deprivation quotas for each area. PARTICIPANTS: 21 members of the public participated in qualitative interviews. RESULTS: The qualitative research identified three major themes and several key attributes that influences participant's opinions about priority setting for childhood vaccinations: (1) population segment (i.e. age group, carer impact and social group), (2) vaccine preventable diseases preferences (i.e. disease severity, disease incidence and declining infection) and (3) risks and benefits associated with childhood vaccinations (i.e. vaccine associated side-effects, herd protection and peace of mind). CONCLUSION: Evidence from this qualitative study suggests that some members of the UK general public have more nuanced views than the health-maximisation approach when considering how childhood vaccines should be prioritised. This is not necessarily captured by the current economic approaches for assessing the benefits from childhood vaccinations in the UK, but is an important area for future research to ensure appropriate decision making.
dc.description.sponsorshipMeningitis Research Foundation
dc.format.mediumElectronic-eCollection
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectVaccines
dc.subjectVaccination
dc.subjectDecision Making
dc.subjectPediatrics
dc.subjectSocial Class
dc.subjectPublic Opinion
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectChild
dc.subjectCost-Benefit Analysis
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectChild Health
dc.subjectUnited Kingdom
dc.titleThe views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study.
dc.typeArticle
prism.issueIdentifier6
prism.publicationDate2018
prism.publicationNamePLoS One
prism.startingPagee0197374
prism.volume13
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.27383
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-05-01
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1371/journal.pone.0197374
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-01
dc.contributor.orcidLasseter, Gemma [0000-0001-7482-6305]
dc.contributor.orcidTrotter, Caroline [0000-0003-4000-2708]
dc.identifier.eissn1932-6203
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
cam.issuedOnline2018-06-13


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)