Dr Hannah Christensen @ MRF's Meningitis & Septicaemia in Children & Adults 2017

Meningitis Research Foundation
Meningitis Research FoundationMeningitis Research Foundation
How do the public think we should prioritise
vaccination programmes?
Results from qualitative interviews and a
discrete choice experiment
Hannah Christensen
Gemma Lasseter, Hareth Al-Janabi, Caroline L Trotter,
Fran E Carroll
Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Evaluation
of Intervention
27 November 2017
1MRF conference 2017
Is the current approach ok?
2
Are all QALYs equal?
3
=
?
The plan
• Identify factors which the population may consider
relevant in prioritising different vaccination
programmes
• Use a discrete choice experiment to determine
population preferences >> ‘weights’ that could be
used to prioritise vaccination programmes against
childhood diseases
4
Identifying factors the population think are
relevant when considering vaccine decisions
• Qualitative study
• 320 postal invites to adults in Bristol & S
Gloucestershire (200 March, +120 June 2016)
• 4 rounds of semi-structured interviews – thematic
analysis
• 21 interviews; 17♀ 4♂ age range 35-75+
5
6
Age
Disease
severity
How
common
Social
group
Carer
impact
Side
effects
Herd
effects
Peace
of mind

infection
Factors
7
“I think 1 year old or less is a vulnerable age group from
health wise and you know within considering possible death,
causes of death. Once they get a bit older, say two year olds,
they’re a bit more robust…”
Age
8
“If it’s something that you can get over without any long-term
consequences then I’m not sure there’s a real need to be
vaccinated against it, but if it could result in death or long-
term health consequences then I think it’s a different case.”
Disease
severity
9
[J]ust considering the impact on families or, children with
diseases that they could’ve been immunised against…it’s a
way of making policymakers think about the effects, because
they tend to think in financial terms, not necessarily in
effects on the family, on parents, on siblings and
psychological effects...depression, anxiety, self-harming, any,
any of those kind of things that can be triggered by extreme
circumstances.
Carer
impact
Using a DCE to determine population
preferences
• Developed DCE using 5 attributes from qualitative
study
• 32 questions split into 2 blocks – each person answers
16 questions
• Respondents given a scenario and asked to choose
between 2 vaccine options
• Representative sample of 2002 UK adults
10
11
27 November 2017
“Imagine that you are a policy maker and that you have been given a limited
amount of money to fund a new vaccination programme in the UK. You have
been asked to choose between two different vaccination programmes, but
there is only enough money to fund one. Each vaccination programme costs
the same amount of money and will be given to same number of people (to
be exact 650,000 people). The vaccination programme is publically funded,
so there will be no charge for those people receiving the vaccine and it will
not be possible to buy the vaccine privately. The different vaccination
programmes have different benefits for the people vaccinated.”
Question 1
Vaccination Programme A Vaccination Programme B
Age group 12 to 17 years ≤1 year old
Disease severity Severe Moderate
How common Rare (65 people) Uncommon (650 people)
Carer impact Moderate Severe
Social group Socially advantaged Socially disadvantaged

I would choose
Vaccination Programme A

I would choose
Vaccination Programme B
DCE results
12
-0.800
-0.600
-0.400
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
Vaccine A (left hand
side)
Vaccine B (right hand
side)
-0.800
-0.600
-0.400
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
Very
common
Common Uncommon Rare
-0.800
-0.600
-0.400
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
Mild Moderate Severe Very severe
-0.800
-0.600
-0.400
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
Mild Moderate Severe Very severe
-0.800
-0.600
-0.400
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
Advantaged Disadvantaged
Age group How common
Carer impact
Disease severity
Social (dis)ad Alternative
-0.800
-0.600
-0.400
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
≤1 year old 2 to 11
years
12 to 17
years
18 years+
Vaccine A
(left hand side)
CoefficientCoefficient
Vaccine B
(right hand side)
Conclusions
• The UK general public do have preferences for
characteristics relevant to vaccine decision making
• Early evidence to suggest these preferences differ
from ‘weight’ currently used
• Future CE analysis should consider these population
preference ‘weights’
13
Acknowledgements
14
With thanks to the individuals who took part in
the qualitative interviews and DCE survey.
This study was funded by the Meningitis
Research Foundation.
HC is supported by the NIHR Health Protection
Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions at
University of Bristol. The views expressed are
those of the author(s) and not necessarily
those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of
Health or Public Health England.
Research team
Dr Gemma Lasseter
University of Bristol
Dr Hareth Al-Janabi
University of Birmingham
Dr Caroline L Trotter
University of Cambridge
Dr Fran E Carroll
Royal College of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists
1 of 14

More Related Content

What's hot(20)

Dr Kirsty Le Doare @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019Dr Kirsty Le Doare @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Dr Kirsty Le Doare @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Meningitis Research Foundation6.3K views
Dr Matt Coldiron @ MRF's Meningitis and SepticaemiaDr Matt Coldiron @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia
Dr Matt Coldiron @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia
Meningitis Research Foundation6.6K views
Dr Suzanne AndersonDr Suzanne Anderson
Dr Suzanne Anderson
Meningitis Research Foundation4.7K views
Dr Sarah Meyer @ Meningitis & Septicaemia in Children & AdultsDr Sarah Meyer @ Meningitis & Septicaemia in Children & Adults
Dr Sarah Meyer @ Meningitis & Septicaemia in Children & Adults
Meningitis Research Foundation6.7K views
Dr Kirsty Le Doare @ MRF's Meningitis & Septicaemia Dr Kirsty Le Doare @ MRF's Meningitis & Septicaemia
Dr Kirsty Le Doare @ MRF's Meningitis & Septicaemia
Meningitis Research Foundation8K views
Prof Rob Heyderman @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019Prof Rob Heyderman @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Prof Rob Heyderman @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Meningitis Research Foundation556 views
Claire Wright @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019  Claire Wright @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Claire Wright @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Meningitis Research Foundation6.7K views
Prof Andrew Pollard @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019Prof Andrew Pollard @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Prof Andrew Pollard @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Meningitis Research Foundation4.6K views
Prof Joy Lawn @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019Prof Joy Lawn @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Prof Joy Lawn @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Meningitis Research Foundation4.7K views
Action Meningitis in MalawiAction Meningitis in Malawi
Action Meningitis in Malawi
Meningitis Research Foundation2.9K views
Prof Adam Finn @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019Prof Adam Finn @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Prof Adam Finn @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Meningitis Research Foundation4.8K views
Dr Jayne Ellis @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019Dr Jayne Ellis @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Dr Jayne Ellis @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia 2019
Meningitis Research Foundation6.4K views
Dr Matt Coldiron @ MRF's Meningitis and SepticaemiaDr Matt Coldiron @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia
Dr Matt Coldiron @ MRF's Meningitis and Septicaemia
Meningitis Research Foundation6K views

Similar to Dr Hannah Christensen @ MRF's Meningitis & Septicaemia in Children & Adults 2017(20)

The Centers for Disease Control and PreventionThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Lauren Cummings-Cornelius687 views
Tailoring immunization programmes in SwedenTailoring immunization programmes in Sweden
Tailoring immunization programmes in Sweden
WHO Regional Office for Europe1.2K views
Engaging Patients in Antimicrobial Resistance and StewardshipEngaging Patients in Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship
Engaging Patients in Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship
Canadian Patient Safety Institute489 views
Risk Characterization, George GrayRisk Characterization, George Gray
Risk Characterization, George Gray
OECD Governance1.1K views
Risk Perception and CommunicationRisk Perception and Communication
Risk Perception and Communication
OECD Governance2.6K views
COVID updateCOVID update
COVID update
EducationNC5K views
Chapter12Chapter12
Chapter12
bholmes598 views
What can we learn from NDIS?What can we learn from NDIS?
What can we learn from NDIS?
Olaf Kraus de Camargo1.4K views
Ethics in newborn careEthics in newborn care
Ethics in newborn care
Laxmikant Deshmukh2.8K views
Nr 503 full class latestNr 503 full class latest
Nr 503 full class latest
Laynebaril50 views
Nr 503 full class latestNr 503 full class latest
Nr 503 full class latest
Laynebaril30 views
Nr 503 full class latestNr 503 full class latest
Nr 503 full class latest
Laynebaril87 views
Marie-Eve Lemoine, "Mere Difference and Chloe’s Law: Redefining the Scope of ...Marie-Eve Lemoine, "Mere Difference and Chloe’s Law: Redefining the Scope of ...
Marie-Eve Lemoine, "Mere Difference and Chloe’s Law: Redefining the Scope of ...
The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics336 views

More from Meningitis Research Foundation(20)

Prof Rob HeydermanProf Rob Heyderman
Prof Rob Heyderman
Meningitis Research Foundation2K views
Marco safadiMarco safadi
Marco safadi
Meningitis Research Foundation2K views
Brenda kwambana adamsBrenda kwambana adams
Brenda kwambana adams
Meningitis Research Foundation2K views
Professor Muhamed-Kheir TahaProfessor Muhamed-Kheir Taha
Professor Muhamed-Kheir Taha
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Potential use of MenABCWY vaccinesPotential use of MenABCWY vaccines
Potential use of MenABCWY vaccines
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Dr william hanageDr william hanage
Dr william hanage
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Dr Maria Deloria KnollDr Maria Deloria Knoll
Dr Maria Deloria Knoll
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Professor Nelesh govender Professor Nelesh govender
Professor Nelesh govender
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Professor Sir Andrew PollardProfessor Sir Andrew Pollard
Professor Sir Andrew Pollard
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Dr Manuel kroneDr Manuel krone
Dr Manuel krone
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Yangyupei yangYangyupei yang
Yangyupei yang
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Dr Rodolfo villena  Dr Rodolfo villena
Dr Rodolfo villena
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Sara katzSara katz
Sara katz
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Dr Xin wangDr Xin wang
Dr Xin wang
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Professor Cal MacLennanProfessor Cal MacLennan
Professor Cal MacLennan
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Dr Sami gottliebDr Sami gottlieb
Dr Sami gottlieb
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Dr Lee hamptonDr Lee hampton
Dr Lee hampton
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Professor Stefan flascheProfessor Stefan flasche
Professor Stefan flasche
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Professor Shrijana shresthaProfessor Shrijana shrestha
Professor Shrijana shrestha
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views
Professor David goldblattProfessor David goldblatt
Professor David goldblatt
Meningitis Research Foundation2.2K views

Dr Hannah Christensen @ MRF's Meningitis & Septicaemia in Children & Adults 2017

  • 1. How do the public think we should prioritise vaccination programmes? Results from qualitative interviews and a discrete choice experiment Hannah Christensen Gemma Lasseter, Hareth Al-Janabi, Caroline L Trotter, Fran E Carroll Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Evaluation of Intervention 27 November 2017 1MRF conference 2017
  • 2. Is the current approach ok? 2
  • 3. Are all QALYs equal? 3 = ?
  • 4. The plan • Identify factors which the population may consider relevant in prioritising different vaccination programmes • Use a discrete choice experiment to determine population preferences >> ‘weights’ that could be used to prioritise vaccination programmes against childhood diseases 4
  • 5. Identifying factors the population think are relevant when considering vaccine decisions • Qualitative study • 320 postal invites to adults in Bristol & S Gloucestershire (200 March, +120 June 2016) • 4 rounds of semi-structured interviews – thematic analysis • 21 interviews; 17♀ 4♂ age range 35-75+ 5
  • 7. 7 “I think 1 year old or less is a vulnerable age group from health wise and you know within considering possible death, causes of death. Once they get a bit older, say two year olds, they’re a bit more robust…” Age
  • 8. 8 “If it’s something that you can get over without any long-term consequences then I’m not sure there’s a real need to be vaccinated against it, but if it could result in death or long- term health consequences then I think it’s a different case.” Disease severity
  • 9. 9 [J]ust considering the impact on families or, children with diseases that they could’ve been immunised against…it’s a way of making policymakers think about the effects, because they tend to think in financial terms, not necessarily in effects on the family, on parents, on siblings and psychological effects...depression, anxiety, self-harming, any, any of those kind of things that can be triggered by extreme circumstances. Carer impact
  • 10. Using a DCE to determine population preferences • Developed DCE using 5 attributes from qualitative study • 32 questions split into 2 blocks – each person answers 16 questions • Respondents given a scenario and asked to choose between 2 vaccine options • Representative sample of 2002 UK adults 10
  • 11. 11 27 November 2017 “Imagine that you are a policy maker and that you have been given a limited amount of money to fund a new vaccination programme in the UK. You have been asked to choose between two different vaccination programmes, but there is only enough money to fund one. Each vaccination programme costs the same amount of money and will be given to same number of people (to be exact 650,000 people). The vaccination programme is publically funded, so there will be no charge for those people receiving the vaccine and it will not be possible to buy the vaccine privately. The different vaccination programmes have different benefits for the people vaccinated.” Question 1 Vaccination Programme A Vaccination Programme B Age group 12 to 17 years ≤1 year old Disease severity Severe Moderate How common Rare (65 people) Uncommon (650 people) Carer impact Moderate Severe Social group Socially advantaged Socially disadvantaged  I would choose Vaccination Programme A  I would choose Vaccination Programme B
  • 12. DCE results 12 -0.800 -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 Vaccine A (left hand side) Vaccine B (right hand side) -0.800 -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 Very common Common Uncommon Rare -0.800 -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 Mild Moderate Severe Very severe -0.800 -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 Mild Moderate Severe Very severe -0.800 -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 Advantaged Disadvantaged Age group How common Carer impact Disease severity Social (dis)ad Alternative -0.800 -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 ≤1 year old 2 to 11 years 12 to 17 years 18 years+ Vaccine A (left hand side) CoefficientCoefficient Vaccine B (right hand side)
  • 13. Conclusions • The UK general public do have preferences for characteristics relevant to vaccine decision making • Early evidence to suggest these preferences differ from ‘weight’ currently used • Future CE analysis should consider these population preference ‘weights’ 13
  • 14. Acknowledgements 14 With thanks to the individuals who took part in the qualitative interviews and DCE survey. This study was funded by the Meningitis Research Foundation. HC is supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions at University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health or Public Health England. Research team Dr Gemma Lasseter University of Bristol Dr Hareth Al-Janabi University of Birmingham Dr Caroline L Trotter University of Cambridge Dr Fran E Carroll Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists