Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

When to be vaccinated? What to consider? Modelling decision-making and time preference for COVID-19 vaccine through a conjoint experiment approach

Samson W.H. Yuen, Ricci P.H. Yue, Bobo H.B. Lau, Cecilia L. W. Chan, Siu-Man Ng
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.05.21258416
Samson W.H. Yuen
aDepartment of Government and International Politics, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: samsonyuen@hkbu.edu.hk
Ricci P.H. Yue
bDepartment of Geography, University of Hong Kong
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bobo H.B. Lau
cDepartment of Counselling and Psychology, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, Hong Kong
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cecilia L. W. Chan
dDepartment of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Hong Kong
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siu-Man Ng
dDepartment of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Hong Kong
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

How do citizens choose COVID-19 vaccines, and when do they wish to be vaccinated? A choice-based conjoint experiment was fielded in Hong Kong to examine factors that shape citizens’ preference toward COVID-19 vaccines and their time preference to be vaccinated, which is overlooked in extant literature. Results suggest people are most concerned about vaccines’ efficacy and severe side-effects, and that cash incentives are not useful in enhancing vaccine appeal. The majority of respondents show low intention for immediate vaccination, and many of them want to delay their vaccination. Further analysis shows that their time preference is shaped more by respondent characteristics than vaccine attributes. In particular, confidence in the vaccine, trust in government, and working in high-risk professions are associated with earlier timing for vaccine uptake. Meanwhile, forced COVID testing would delay vaccination. The findings offer a novel view in understanding how people decide whether and when to receive new vaccines, which have pivotal implications for a head start of any mass vaccination programs.

Highlights

  • People are most concerned about vaccines’ efficacy and severe side-effects when choosing COVID-19 vaccines

  • Cash incentives are not useful in enhancing vaccines’ appeal

  • Time preference of vaccination is shaped more by respondent characteristics than vaccine attributes

  • Forced COVID testing might delay vaccination decision

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by Innovative Research Grant awarded by the University of Hong Kong to [anonymized].

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The research has received ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Hong Kong under ref number EA2003003 (March 6, 2020).

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Data used in this research will be available upon request

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 07, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
When to be vaccinated? What to consider? Modelling decision-making and time preference for COVID-19 vaccine through a conjoint experiment approach
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
When to be vaccinated? What to consider? Modelling decision-making and time preference for COVID-19 vaccine through a conjoint experiment approach
Samson W.H. Yuen, Ricci P.H. Yue, Bobo H.B. Lau, Cecilia L. W. Chan, Siu-Man Ng
medRxiv 2021.06.05.21258416; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.05.21258416
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
When to be vaccinated? What to consider? Modelling decision-making and time preference for COVID-19 vaccine through a conjoint experiment approach
Samson W.H. Yuen, Ricci P.H. Yue, Bobo H.B. Lau, Cecilia L. W. Chan, Siu-Man Ng
medRxiv 2021.06.05.21258416; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.05.21258416

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Policy
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (214)
  • Allergy and Immunology (495)
  • Anesthesia (106)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1091)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (194)
  • Dermatology (141)
  • Emergency Medicine (274)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (497)
  • Epidemiology (9747)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (480)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2299)
  • Geriatric Medicine (221)
  • Health Economics (461)
  • Health Informatics (1548)
  • Health Policy (729)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (600)
  • Hematology (236)
  • HIV/AIDS (500)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11623)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (615)
  • Medical Education (236)
  • Medical Ethics (67)
  • Nephrology (256)
  • Neurology (2137)
  • Nursing (133)
  • Nutrition (332)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (424)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (516)
  • Oncology (1171)
  • Ophthalmology (363)
  • Orthopedics (128)
  • Otolaryngology (220)
  • Pain Medicine (145)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (308)
  • Pediatrics (693)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (298)
  • Primary Care Research (265)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2168)
  • Public and Global Health (4640)
  • Radiology and Imaging (775)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (451)
  • Respiratory Medicine (622)
  • Rheumatology (273)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (224)
  • Sports Medicine (208)
  • Surgery (250)
  • Toxicology (42)
  • Transplantation (120)
  • Urology (94)