Preferences of healthcare providers in Switzerland for attributes of pediatric hexavalent vaccines: a discrete-choice experiment

Abstract

Objective

To understand the preferences of healthcare providers (HCPs) in Switzerland for pediatric hexavalent vaccine attributes.

Methods

A discrete-choice experiment included a series of choices between 2 hypothetical pediatric hexavalent vaccines with varying attributes: device type (including preparation time and risk of dosage errors), proportion of infants seroprotected against Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) at 11–12 months (pre-booster), packaging size, years on the market, and the thermostability at room temperature. Odds ratios (ORs) and conditional relative attribute importance (CRAI) were calculated using random-parameters logit.

Results

HCPs (150 pediatricians and 40 nursing staff) in Switzerland were unlikely to choose a vaccine conferring 50% (OR 0.00; 95% CI 0.00–0.00) or 70% (OR 0.01; 95% CI 0.00–0.01) of infants with Hib seroprotection at 11-12 months (pre-booster) compared with a vaccine conferring 90% seroprotection. The odds of choosing a vaccine available on the market for more than 3 years were nearly 5 times the odds of choosing a vaccine available on the market for less than 1 year (OR 4.76; 95% CI 1.87–7.65). The odds of choosing a vaccine in a prefilled syringe were nearly 3 times the odds of choosing a reconstituted vaccine (OR 2.77; 95% CI 1.39–4.15), and the odds of choosing a vaccine with a smaller package size were nearly 2 times the odds of choosing a vaccine with larger package size (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.23–2.55). HCPs were equally likely to choose vaccines that can stay at room temperature for 6 versus 3 days (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.73–1.42). According to CRAI, the most important attribute was Hib seroprotection, followed by years on the market, device type, and packaging size.

Conclusion

Hib seroprotection at 11–12 months was the most important hexavalent vaccine attribute to HCPs in this study.

Keywords:

• Conjoint analysis
• DCE
• healthcare provider
• hexavalent vaccine
• nurse
• physician
• stated preferences

Transparency

Declaration of financial/other relationships

SS, TM, and TP are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD), and may own stock and/or hold stock options in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. CP and PC are employees of RTI Health Solutions, which received funding from MCM for this study. MB was an employee of RTI Health Solutions when this research was conducted. EL and SO are employees of Sanofi and may hold stock and/or hold stock options in the company.

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

SS, SO, TM, CP, PC, EL, TP, and MB are responsible for the work described in this paper. All authors were involved in conception, design of work or acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data and were involved in drafting the manuscript or reviewing the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors provided final approval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Bianca Chun of MSD and Kimberly Moon of RTI Health Solutions for providing project management for this study. Kate Lothman of RTI Health Solutions provided writing and editorial support, with funding from MSD.

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by MCM Vaccine B.V., a partnership between Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and Sanofi Inc., Swiftwater, PA, USA. Although the sponsors formally reviewed a penultimate draft, the opinions expressed are those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors. All co-authors approved the final version of the manuscript.