Investigating the influencing factors of vaccination decisions for newly developed and established vaccines: a comparative study based on latent class logit models in China.

Background: The factors influencing vaccination decision-making for newly developed vaccines may be similar to and different from those for established vaccines. Understanding these underlying differences and similarities is crucial for designing targeted measures to promote new vaccines against potential novel viruses. Objective: This study aims to compare public vaccination decisions for newly developed and established vaccines and to identify the differences and similarities in the influencing factors. Method: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted on 1,509 representatives of the general population in China to collect data on preferences for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza vaccines, representing the newly developed and established vaccines, respectively. The latent class logit model was used to identify latent classes within the sample, allowing for an analysis of the factors distinctly influencing choices for both types of vaccines. Result: Participants valued similar attributes for both vaccines. However, concerns about sequelae were more significant for the newly developed vaccine, while effectiveness was prioritized for the established vaccine. Class membership analysis revealed these differences and similarities were significantly correlated with age, health, yearly household income, acquaintances' vaccination status, and risk perception. Conclusion: The study highlights the need for tailored communication strategies and targeted vaccination interventions. For the newly developed vaccines, addressing concerns about side effects is more crucial. For long-standing vaccines, emphasizing their effectiveness can enhance uptake more significantly. Engaging healthcare providers and community influencers is essential for both vaccines to increase public confidence and vaccination rates. Clear communication and community engagement are critical strategies for addressing public concerns and misinformation, particularly during periods of heightened concern.

Heuristics in vaccination Decision-Making for newly developed Vaccines: Understanding the public's imitative behavior.

This study aims to investigate the extent to which the public engages in imitative behavior in their vaccination decisions for newly developed vaccines in the Chinese context. Given the crucial role of newly developed vaccines in preventing and controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, a better understanding of how people make decisions about vaccination with new vaccines is important for overcoming vaccine hesitation and promoting widespread adoption of the vaccines. Our results indicate that the public's decision-making about the newly developed vaccine is influenced by a range of heuristics, including a privileged information heuristic, competence heuristic, and consensus heuristic. Specifically, individuals are more likely to imitate the vaccination behavior of those with privileged information, such as insiders, and those with perceived competence in the field, such as experts. Our findings also demonstrate the impact of majority influence, as the popularity of new vaccines leads to an increase in vaccination uptake through herd behavior. Our data highlights the importance of the first movers who are insiders with privileged information or experts with competence, as their behavior can significantly shape the vaccination decisions of others. Our study provides valuable insights into the complex interplay of heuristics and imitative behavior in vaccination decision-making for newly developed vaccines.

Time preference shifts in medical decision-making after serious illness.

This study explores the impact of serious illnesses, such as cancer, on patients' time preferences in medical decision-making. Specifically, we assess how patients value extending their lifespan by one year under varying survival prognoses through three experimental studies. The findings reveal that patients exhibit a higher Subjective Discount Rates (SDR) in their medical decisions after a serious illness diagnosis. Notably, this difference in individual health also affects the time preferences of their family members. Additionally, the subjective contextual setting of the illness can also increase an individual's SDR levels. The research highlights a tendency for patients and families facing a potential short life expectancy to focus more on immediate concerns, leading to potentially shortsighted and irrational medical choices. This behavior often results in regret during the end-of-life stage. These insights are vital for healthcare professionals in optimizing treatment plans and for policymakers in understanding patient behaviors more comprehensively. The study emphasizes the need for considering psychological and behavioral changes in patients grappling with severe health challenges.