Abstract
Background Mandatory vaccination has been mooted to combat falling childhood vaccine uptake rates in England. This study investigated parental preferences for a mandatory vaccination scheme.
Methods Discrete choice experiment. Six attributes were investigated: vaccine (MMR, 6-in-1), child age group (2 years and older, 5 years and older), incentive (£130 cash incentive for parent, £130 voucher incentive for child, no incentive), penalty (£450 fine, parent not able to claim Child Benefits for an unvaccinated child, unvaccinated child not able to attend school or day care), ability to opt out (medical exemption only, medical and religious belief exemption), and compensation scheme (not offered, offered). Mixed effects conditional logit regression models were used to investigate parental preferences and relative importance of attributes.
Findings Participants were 1,001 parents of children aged 5 years and under (53% female, mean age=33·6 years, SD=7·1, 84% white British). Parental preferences were mostly based on incentives (slight preference for cash pay-out for the parent versus a voucher for the child) and penalties (preference for schemes that did not allow unvaccinated children to attend school or day care and those that withheld financial benefits for parents of unvaccinated children). Parents also preferred schemes that: offered a compensation scheme, mandated the 6-in-1 vaccine, mandated vaccination in children aged 2 years and older, and that offered only medical exemptions.
Interpretation Results can inform policymakers’ decisions about how best to implement a mandatory childhood vaccination scheme in England.
Funding Data collection was funded by a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grants (SRG1920\101118).
Evidence before this study Uptake of childhood vaccines in high-income countries has decreased in recent years. Making vaccination mandatory has the potential to increase uptake. There is no standard approach to mandatory vaccination schemes. Research suggests that the cultural context will affect perceived acceptability of vaccine laws. Mandatory vaccination has been mooted in England as a way to increase vaccine uptake. However, there is no recent research investigating parental preferences for how a mandatory vaccine scheme could be implemented.
Added value of this study We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate English parents’ preferences for a mandatory vaccination scheme. Variables included were parameters that are likely to be considered by policymakers if a mandatory vaccination scheme were to be proposed.
Implications of all the available evidence Study results indicate that parents prefer mandatory vaccination schemes that offer financial incentives for vaccination. The penalty imposed for missing a vaccine dose, and the inclusion of a compensation scheme for severe adverse effects also influenced preferences. These results can be used to inform policy should a mandatory vaccination scheme be proposed in England.
Competing Interest Statement
LS is a participant of the UK's Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B), a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.
Funding Statement
Data collection was funded by a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grants awarded to LS (SRG1920\101118). The funding source had no role in analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This work presents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London (BC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. No award/grant number is applicable.
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:
Ethical approval for this study was granted by King's College London Psychiatry, Nursing, and Midwifery Research Ethics subcommittee (reference number LRS-20/21-21880).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Anonymised data, and an accompanying data dictionary will be made available to others after publication, beginning 3 months and ending 5 years following article publication. Researchers who provide a statistical analysis plan addressing a methodological robust legitimate research question will be able to request the data to achieve the aims in the approved proposal. Proposals should be directed to louise.e.smith{at}kcl.ac.uk to gain access. Data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.
