4.0 Article

Use of conjoint analysis to assess HIV vaccine acceptability: feasibility of an innovation in the assessment of consumer health-care preferences

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 235-241

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/ijsa.2011.011189

Keywords

HIV; conjoint analysis; consumer preferences; discrete choice experiment; feasibility; HIV vaccine acceptability; partial efficacy

Funding

  1. Universitywide AIDS Research Program [CC99-LA-002]
  2. UCLA AIDS Institute and Palotta Teamworks AIDS Vaccine Rides
  3. NIMH [R01MH069087, R01-MH-069087-01A1, NIMH 5K01MH085503]
  4. Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services (CHIPTS) [P30 MH 58107]
  5. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada)
  6. Canada Research Chairs Program
  7. NIH/NIDA
  8. NIH/NIA [P30-AG0216841]
  9. NIH/NIMHD [P20-MD000182]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Engaging consumers in prospectively shaping strategies for dissemination of health-care innovations may help to ensure acceptability. We examined the feasibility of using conjoint analysis to assess future HIV vaccine acceptability among three diverse communities: a multiethnic sample in Los Angeles, CA, USA (n = 143); a Thai resident sample in Los Angeles (three groups; n = 27) and an Aboriginal peoples sample in Toronto (n = 13). Efficacy had the greatest impact on acceptability for all three groups, followed by cross-clade protection, side-effects and duration of protection in the Los Angeles sample; side-effects and duration of protection in the Thai-Los Angeles sample; and number of doses and duration of protection in the Aboriginal peoples-Toronto sample. Conjoint analysis provided insights into universal and population-specific preferences among diverse end users of future HIV vaccines, with implications for evidence-informed targeting of dissemination efforts to optimize vaccine uptake.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available