BACKGROUND The preferences for features of influenza vaccination programs among clinicians practicing traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and modern western medicine (WM) remained unknown. OBJECTIVE To understand preferences for features of influenza vaccination programs among clinicians practicing traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and modern western medicine (WM). METHODS We conducted a discrete choice experiment with national sample of 3,085 Chinese clinicians from various level of hospital (n = 1013 practicing TCM). Simulations from choice models using the experimental data generated the coefficients of preference, and predicted uptake rate of different influenza vaccination programs. Clinicians were grouped by vaccine preference classification through a latent class analysis. RESULTS All attributes included are significantly influencing clinicians’ preference for choosing influenza vaccination. An approximate hypothetical 60% increase could be obtained when the attitude of the workplace changed from “no-notice” to “encouraging of vaccination”; there was an approximate hypothetical 35% increase when vaccination campaign strategies changed from “individual appointment” to “vaccination in a workplace setting”. In the entire sample, about 30% of clinicians prefer free vaccination, while 26% comprehensively consider attributes. Clinicians that practicing TCM, work in tertiary hospital, or have at least postgraduate degree exhibit a lower preference for free vaccination. Clinicians that practicing WM, work in primary hospital, or have at most bachelor’s degree a higher preference for workplace vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS Offering a range of influenza vaccination programs targeting the preferred attributes of different clinician groups could potentially encourage more individuals to participate in influenza vaccination programs and assist in addressing influenza vaccine hesitancy. CLINICALTRIAL Zhejiang Chinese Medical University Ethics Committee reviewed and approved this protocol and informed consent was obtained from each participant (No.20221021–1).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: