Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments

Abstract Background Choice-based experiments have been increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs. This study aims systematically identify examine choice-based assessing (differences in) vaccine of vaccinees, representatives health advisors. Methods Five electronic databases were searched on conjoint analysis studies or discrete choice capturing children, adolescents, parents, adults healthcare professionals attributes settings up September 2020. Data was extracted using a standardized form covering all important aspects experiments. A quality assessment assess the validity studies. Attributes categorized into outcome, process, cost other. The importance assessed by frequency reporting statistical significance. Results compared between high-quality lower-quality total 42 included, with majority conducted in high-income countries after 2010 (resp. n = 34 37). Preferences studied nearly half (47.6%), followed vaccinees (35.7%) advisors (9.5%). Sixteen passed assessment. Outcome- cost- related such as effectiveness, risk, protection duration most often statistically significant across both target groups, effectiveness being important. Risks associated vaccination, side effects, more targeting while cost-related representatives. Process-related accessibility time least groups. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is first systematic review which different groups compared. same decisions representatives, only minor differences level evidence risk cost. Future research and/or among low-resource would give insight generalizability current findings.