IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i2p177-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating on Vaccine Benefit-Risk Ratios: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Health Care Professionals and the General Population in France

Author

Listed:
  • Lucia Araujo Chaveron

    (EHESP French School of Public Health, Paris, France
    Institut Pasteur, Paris, France)

  • Jonathan Sicsic

    (Université Paris Cité, LIRAES, Paris, France)

  • Cyril Olivier

    (Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES), Paris, France)

  • Gerard Pellissier

    (Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES), Paris, France)

  • Elisabeth Bouvet

    (Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES), Paris, France)

  • Judith E. Mueller

    (EHESP French School of Public Health, Paris, France
    Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
    Univ. Rennes, EHESP, CNRS, Inserm, Arènes - UMR 6051, RSMS (Recherche sur les Services et Management en Santé) - U 1309, Rennes, France)

Abstract

Background We explored preferences around the benefit-risk ratio (BRR) of vaccination among the general adult population and health care sector workers (HCSWs). We estimated preference weights and expected vaccine uptake for different BRR levels for a vaccine recommended during an infectious disease emergence. In addition, we explored how far qualitative information about disease severity, epidemiological context, and indirect protection interacts with these preferences. Methodology This was a cross-sectional study, using a self-administered online questionnaire containing a single-profile discrete choice experiment among HCSWs and the general population in France (quasi-representative sample). The questionnaire was available from January 12 to April 27, 2023, for HCSWs and from April 17 to May 3, 2023, for the general population. BRR is represented as the number of vaccine-prevented disease events for 1 event related to a vaccine side effect. Results are reported in 4 groups: general population sample, non-HCSWs, non–university-degree HCSWs, and university-degree HCSWs. Results Among the 1,869 participants, 1,038 (55.5%) varied their vaccine decision among the different vaccine scenarios. Hypothetical vaccine acceptance among university-degree HCSWs increased when the vaccination BRR was 100:1, while non–university-degree HCSWs and non-HCSWs were more sensitive to qualitative information about the vaccine BRR than quantitative indicators. Among participants in the general population sample with varied decisions, expected acceptance increased by 40% sample if disease risk was high. Among serial vaccine nondemanders, high disease risk decreased their certitude to refuse hypothetical vaccination. Conclusion Our results suggest that only university-degree HCSWs are sensitive to the notion of BRR, but not the general public. Given that previous research found speaking about BRR might reduce vaccine acceptance, this notion should be avoided in vaccine promotion. Highlights The notion of benefit-risk ratio (BRR) of vaccination appears to be taken into account in vaccine decisions by university-degree HCSWs, but not by the general public. Mentioning a favorable BRR could imply that the vaccine is not safe and reduce vaccine motivation. Mentioning qualitative attributes of BRR surrounding disease frequency and severity, and indirect protection effects, strongly affected theoretical vaccine decisions in all participants, irrespective of professional categories. Expected vaccine acceptance increased by 40% among the general population sample if disease risk was presented as high, and expected vaccine coverage exceeded 50% in scenarios with high disease risk. Among those refusing vaccination in all vaccine scenarios, only a high risk of developing the disease decreased their certitude to refuse vaccination. This further underlines the importance of disease risk perception on vaccine decision making, including among persons who a priori are unlikely to accept vaccination.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucia Araujo Chaveron & Jonathan Sicsic & Cyril Olivier & Gerard Pellissier & Elisabeth Bouvet & Judith E. Mueller, 2025. "Communicating on Vaccine Benefit-Risk Ratios: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Health Care Professionals and the General Population in France," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(2), pages 177-191, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:2:p:177-191
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241303876
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241303876
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241303876?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:2:p:177-191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.