Public Preferences for Exit Strategies From COVID-19 Lockdown in Germany-A Discrete Choice Experiment

Navigating Public Policy Responses to a Pandemic: The Balancing Act Between Physical Health, Mental Health, and Household Income

OBJECTIVE

During COVID-19, governments imposed restrictions that reduced pandemic-related health risks but likely increased personal and societal mental health risk, partly through reductions in household income. This study aimed to quantify the public's willingness to accept trade-offs between pandemic health risks, household income reduction, and increased risk of mental illness that may result from future pandemic-related policies.

METHODS

A total of 547 adults from an online panel participated in a discrete choice experiment where they were asked to choose between hypothetical future pandemic scenarios. Each scenario was characterized by personal and societal risks of dying from the pandemic, experiencing long-term complications, developing anxiety/depression, and reductions in household income. A latent class regression was used to estimate trade-offs.

RESULTS

Respondents state a willingness to make trade-offs across these attributes if the benefits are large enough. They are willing to accept 0.8% lower household income (0.7-1.0), 2.7% higher personal risk of anxiety/depression (1.8-3.6), or 3.2% higher societal rate of anxiety/depression (1.7-4.7) in exchange for 300 fewer deaths from the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Results reveal that individuals are willing to accept lower household income and higher rates of mental illness, both personal and societal, if the physical health benefits are large enough. Respondents placed greater emphasis on maintaining personal, as opposed to societal, mental health risk and were most interested in preventing pandemic-related deaths. Governments should consider less restrictive policies when pandemics have high morbidity but low mortality to avoid the prospect of improving physical health while simultaneously reducing net social welfare.

Influence parental- and child-related factors on the acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 test methods in schools and daycare facilities

Introduction

Rapid testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was an essential step in reducing the spread of the virus and monitoring pandemic development. Most mandatory standard pandemic testing in Germany has been performed in schools and daycare facilities. We investigated the influence of behavioral and attitudinal characteristics of children and caregivers on their acceptance of (i) antigen-based nasal swab rapid and (ii) oral saliva-based pooled Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests.

Methods

Conducted through a cross-sectional survey between November and December 2021, with 1962 caregivers and 581 children/adolescents participating, the study evaluated the acceptability of each testing method on a six-point scale. Participants scored one test method conducted on their child at one of six levels with 1 and 6 denoting "excellent" (1) and "inadequate" (6), respectively. We considered demographic variables, vaccination status, child mental health (measured by the SDQ-questionnaire), and facility type (kindergarten, primary school, secondary school) as covariates.

Results

Results reveal a preference for saliva-based PCR tests over nasal swabs by about one grade, particularly among parents of unvaccinated children, especially if their child expressed future vaccination reluctance. Testing acceptance was lower among children with mental health issues, primary school-aged, and those with less-educated parents. Perception of test accuracy and convenience influenced attitudes, favoring saliva-based PCR tests. Moreover, children with mental health issues felt less secure during testing.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the influence of different testing methods on testing acceptance for SARS-CoV-2 in children and caregivers. Our study identifies predictors of lower acceptance of public health surveillance measures and enables the development of educational programs on testing and vaccination tailored to the needs of specific target groups. Moreover, we demonstrate that test acceptance in vulnerable groups can be enhanced by careful choice of an appropriate testing method.

Preferences for the Societal Impacts of a Pandemic when it Transitions into an Endemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

The stage of the pandemic significantly affects people's preferences for (the societal impacts of) COVID-19 policies. No discrete choice experiments were conducted when the COVID-19 pandemic was in a transition phase.

OBJECTIVES

This is the first study to empirically investigate how citizens weigh the key societal impacts of pandemic policies when the COVID-19 pandemic transitions into an endemic.

METHODS

We performed two discrete choice experiments among 2181 Dutch adults that included six attributes: COVID-19 deaths, physical health problems, mental health problems, financial problems, surgery delays and the degree to which individual liberties are restricted. We used latent class choice models to identify heterogeneous preferences for the impacts of COVID-19 measures across different groups of respondents.

RESULTS

A large majority of the participants in this study was willing to accept deaths to avoid that citizens experience physical complaints, mental health issues, financial problems and the postponement of surgeries. The willingness to tolerate COVID-19 deaths to avoid these societal impacts differed substantially between participants. When participants were provided with information about the stringency of COVID-19 measures, they assigned relatively less value to preventing the postponement of non-urgent surgeries for 1-3 months across all classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Having gone through a pandemic, most Dutch citizens clearly prefer pandemic policies that consider citizens' financial situations, physical problems, mental health problems and individual liberties, alongside the effects on excess mortality and pressure on healthcare.

The public's considerations about implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions to manage a novel COVID-19 epidemic

In the future, new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus might emerge and cause outbreaks. If this occurs, the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) can be reconsidered. Consideration of the potential benefits and harms of implementing NPIs, and ultimately deciding about implementing NPIs, is currently mainly executed by experts and governments. However, general literature on public engagement suggests that integrating public perspectives into decision-making can enhance the quality of decisions and foster greater public understanding of them. In this study, a deliberative mini-public was conducted to integrate this public perspective. The aim was to elicit public considerations regarding non-pharmaceutical interventions by asking a diverse group of citizens to participate as decision-makers and convene, learn and deliberate about implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions during a hypothetical outbreak of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant. Participants emphasized the importance of early implementation during the outbreak, to prevent exceeding healthcare capacity, long-term mental health issues, educational deficits, and bankruptcies. Additionally, participants stressed taking public support into account, and shared ideas on maintaining support. Furthermore, participants wanted to give citizens personal responsibility and freedom in making their own assessment regarding adherence to interventions and how much risk of infection they would be willing to accept. Participants also expressed the need for the government to adopt a learning attitude towards improvements in pandemic response, and to generate more focus on long-term strategies. The deliberative mini-public, revealed public considerations that reflected public values and needs. These considerations might be helpful in better aligning epidemic management policies with public perspectives. Regarding the deliberative mini-public, uncertainties remain about the design and impact on a bigger scale.

Preferences for public engagement in decision-making regarding four COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions in the Netherlands: A survey study

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were implemented during the COVID-19 crisis, which heavily impacted the daily lives of citizens. This study considers public perspectives on whether and how public engagement (PE) can contribute to future decision-making about NPIs.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of the public in the Netherlands from 27 October to 9 November 2021. Perceptions and preferences about PE in decision-making on NPIs to control COVID-19 were collected. Preferences regarding four NPIs were studied: Nightly curfew (NC); Digital Covid Certificate (DCC); Closure of elementary schools and daycares (CED); and physical distancing (1.5M). Engagement was surveyed based on the five participation modes of the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, namely inform, consult, advice, collaborate and empower.

RESULTS

Of the 4981 respondents, 25% expressed a desire to engage in decision-making, as they thought engagement could improve their understanding and the quality of NPIs, as well as increase their trust in the government. Especially for the NPIs DCC and NC, respondents found it valuable to engage and provide their perspective on trade-offs in values (e.g. opening up society versus division in society by vaccination status). Respondents agreed that the main responsibility in decision-making should stay with experts and policy-makers. 50% of respondents did not want to engage, as they felt no need to engage or considered themselves insufficiently knowledgeable. Inform was deemed the most preferred mode of engagement, and empower the least preferred mode of engagement.

CONCLUSION

We reveal large variations in public preferences regarding engagement in NPI decision-making. With 25% of respondents expressing an explicit desire to engage, and considering the benefit of PE in other areas of (public) health, opportunities for PE in NPI decision-making might have been overlooked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results provide guidance into when and how to execute PE in future outbreaks.

Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment

Worldwide, social healthcare systems must face the challenges of a growing scarcity of resources and of its inevitable distributional effects. Explicit criteria are needed to define the boundaries of public reimbursement decisions. As Germany stands at the beginning of such a discussion, more formalised priority setting procedures seem in order. Recent research identified multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as a promising approach to inform and to guide decision-making in healthcare systems. In that regard, this paper aims to analyse the relative weight assigned to various criteria in setting priority interventions in Germany. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was employed in 2015 to elicit equity and efficiency preferences of 263 decision makers, through six attributes. The experiment allowed us to rate different policy interventions based on their features in a composite league table (CLT). As number of potential beneficiaries, severity of disease, individual health benefits and cost-effectiveness are the most relevant criteria for German decision makers within the sample population, the results display an overall higher preference towards efficiency criteria. Specific high priority interventions are mental disorders and cardiovascular diseases.

Voices of society: the emergence of civil-society practices aiming to engage in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public groups mobilised themselves in civil-society engagement practices (CSEPs) aiming to improve or suggest alternative epidemic management. This study explores the motivation to establish CSEPs and their perceived contributions to epidemic management, to gain insight whether integrating views of CSEPs could add value. A systematic online search was executed to identify CSEPs focused on COVID-19 management between January 2020 and January 2022 in the Netherlands. In order to create a comprehensible overview of the identified CSEPs, relevant characteristics were gathered and mapped, for example, local or national scope, subject of action and goals. A selection of CSEPs was interviewed between April and June 2022 to study their motivators to start the CSEPs and perceived contributions to management. The search resulted in the identification of 22 CSEPs, of which members of 14 CSEPs were interviewed. These members indicated several issues that motivated the start of their CSEP, namely; shortage of equipment, sense of solidarity, and a perceived lack of governmental action, lack of democratic values and lack in diversity of perspectives in epidemic management. All respondents believed to have contributed to policy or society, by influencing opinions, and occasionally by altering policy. However, respondents encountered obstacles in their attempts to contribute such as inability to establish contact with authorities, feeling unheard or undermined, and complications due to the interplay of political interests. In conclusion, CSEPs have fulfilled various roles such as providing alternative management policies, producing equipment, representing the needs of vulnerable populations, and supporting citizens and providing citizens with other viewpoints and information. The identified motivators to establish CSEPs in this study uncover room for improvements in policy. These insights, together with the identified perceived barriers of CSEPs, can be used to improve the connection between (future) epidemic management and public priorities and interests.

Public Preferences for Introducing a COVID-19 Certificate: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Here we investigate public preferences for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) certificates in the Netherlands, and whether these preferences differ between subgroups in the population.

METHODS

A survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to 1500 members of the adult population of the Netherlands. Each participant was asked to choose between hypothetical COVID-19 certificates that differed in seven attributes: the starting date, and whether the certificate allowed gathering with multiple people, shopping without appointment, visiting bars and restaurants, visiting cinemas and theatres, attending events, and practising indoor sports. Latent class models (LCMs) were used to determine the attribute relative importance and predicted acceptance rate of hypothetical certificates.

RESULTS

Three classes of preference patterns were identified in the LCM. One class a priori opposed a certificate (only two attributes influencing preferences), another class was relatively neutral and included all attributes in their decision making, and the final class was positive towards a certificate. Respondents aged > 65 years and those who plan to get vaccinated were more likely to belong to the latter two classes. Being allowed to shop without appointment and to visit bars and restaurants was most important to all respondents, increasing predicted acceptance rate by 12 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferences for introduction of a COVID-19 certificate are mixed. A certificate that allows for shopping without appointment and visiting bars and restaurants is likely to increase acceptance. The support of younger citizens and those who plan to get vaccinated seems most sensitive to the specific freedoms granted by a COVID-19 certificate.

Preferences for COVID-19 epidemic control measures among French adults: a discrete choice experiment

In this stated preferences study, we describe for the first time French citizens' preferences for various epidemic control measures, to inform longer-term strategies and future epidemics. We used a discrete choice experiment in a representative sample of 908 adults in November 2020 (before vaccination was available) to quantify the trade-off they were willing to make between restrictions on the social, cultural, and economic life, school closing, targeted lockdown of high-incidence areas, constraints to directly protect vulnerable persons (e.g., self-isolation), and measures to overcome the risk of hospital overload. The estimation of mixed logit models with correlated random effects shows that some trade-offs exist to avoid overload of hospitals and intensive care units, at the expense of stricter control measures with the potential to reduce individuals' welfare. The willingness to accept restrictions was shared to a large extent across subgroups according to age, gender, education, vulnerability to the COVID-19 epidemic, and other socio-demographic or economic variables. However, individuals who felt at greater risk from COVID-19, and individuals expressing high confidence in the governmental management of the health and economic crisis, more easily accepted all these restrictions. Finally, we compared the welfare impact of alternative strategies combining different epidemic control measures. Our results suggest that policies close to a targeted lockdown or with medically prescribed self-isolation were those satisfying the largest share of the population and achieving high gain in average welfare, while average welfare was maximized by the combination of all highly restrictive measures. This illustrates the difficulty in making preference-based decisions on restrictions.

Stepping into the shoes of the policy maker: Results of a Participatory Value Evaluation for the Dutch long term COVID-19 strategy

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak early 2020 was followed by an unprecedented package of measures. The relative calmness of the pandemic early 2022 provides a momentum to prepare for various scenarios.

OBJECTIVES

As acceptance of COVID-19 measures is key for public support we investigated citizens' preferences towards imposing measures in four scenarios: 1) spring/summer scenario with few hospitalizations; 2) autumn/winter scenario with many hospitalizations; 3) a new contagious variant, the impact on hospitalizations is unclear; 4) a new contagious variant, hospitalizations will substantially increase.

METHODS

Study 1 comprised a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) in which 2011 respondents advised their government on which measures to impose in the four scenarios. Respondents received information regarding the impact of each measure on the risk that the health system would be overloaded. To triangulate the results, 2958 respondents in Study 2 evaluated the acceptability of the measures in each scenario.

RESULTS

Measures were ranked similarly by respondents in Study 1 and 2: 1) the majority of respondents thought that hygiene measures should be upheld, even in the spring/summer; 2) the majority supported booster vaccination, working from home, encouraging self-testing, and mandatory face masks from scenario 2 onwards; 3) even in scenario 4, lockdown measures were not supported by the majority. Young respondents were willing to accept more risks for the health system than older respondents.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that policies that focus on prevention (through advising low-impact hygiene measures) and early response to moderate threats (by scaling up to moderately restrictive measures and boostering) can count on substantial support. There is low support for lockdown measures even under high-risk conditions, which further emphasizes the importance of prevention and a timely response to new threats. Our results imply that young citizens' concerns, in particular, should be addressed when restrictive COVID-19 measures are to be implemented.

Service-level barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use health services for treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use (AUD/PAU) were fragmented and challenging to access. The pandemic magnified system weaknesses, often resulting in disruptions of treatment as alcohol use during the pandemic rose. When treatment services were available, utilisation was often low for various reasons. Virtual care was implemented to offset the drop in in-person care, however accessibility was not universal. Identification of the characteristics of treatment services for AUD/PAU that impact accessibility, as perceived by the individuals accessing or providing the services, will provide insights to enable improved access. We will perform a scoping review that will identify characteristics of services for treatment of AUD/PAU that have been identified as barriers to or facilitators of service access from the perspectives of these groups.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow scoping review methodological guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Using the OVID platform, we will search Ovid MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, APA PsychInfo, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL (Ebsco Platform). Multiple reviewers will screen citations. We will seek studies reporting data collected from individuals with AUD/PAU or providers of treatment for AUD/PAU on service-level factors affecting access to care. We will map barriers to and facilitators of access to AUD/PAU treatment services identified in the relevant studies, stratified by service type and key measures of inequity across service users.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research will enhance awareness of existing evidence regarding barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use. Findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and a stakeholder meeting. As this is a scoping review of published literature, no ethics approval was required.

Travel mode preferences among German commuters over the course of COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way how the people live, work and move, and naturally the transport sector became one of the most affected by this global crisis. Beyond the sudden fall of mobility at the beginning of the pandemic, it is important to understand how people are regaining trust in travelling, even if it is still unpredictable if and when the transport sector will recover to the pre-pandemic levels. This study focuses on the analysis of commuting trips and the changes of travel mode preferences over the first eight months of the pandemic in Germany. A survey with an orthogonal design based on sets of cards containing different transport mode alternatives and attributes was conducted in three waves (April, June, and October 2020). The individual characteristics and the preferences of around 4800 commuters were collected through the survey and modelled using a conditional logit approach. The results show that commuters have regained some trust on public transport since the April-May 2020 lockdown, but this has occurred at a slow pace. The reduction of public transport ticket fares can be the most effective strategy to recover some of the users lost to other modes.

Applications of discrete choice experiments in COVID-19 research: Disparity in survey qualities between health and transport fields

Published choice experiments linked to various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic are analysed in a rapid review. The aim is to (i) document the diversity of topics as well as their temporal and geographical patterns of emergence, (ii) compare various elements of design quality across different sectors of applied economics, and (iii) identify potential signs of convergent validity across findings of comparable experiments. Of the N = 43 published choice experiments during the first two years of the pandemic, the majority identifies with health applications (n = 30), followed by transport-related applications (n = 10). Nearly 100,000 people across the world responded to pandemic-related discrete choice surveys. Within health applications, while the dominant theme, up until June 2020, was lockdown relaxation and tracing measures, the focus shifted abruptly to vaccine preference since then. Geographical origins of the health surveys were not diverse. Nearly 50% of all health surveys were conducted in only three countries, namely US, China and The Netherlands. Health applications exhibited stronger pre-testing and larger sample sizes compared to transport applications. Limited signs of convergent validity were identifiable. Within some applications, issues of temporal instability as well as hypothetical bias attributable to social desirability, protest response or policy consequentiality seemed likely to have affected the findings. Nevertheless, very few of the experiments implemented measures of hypothetical bias mitigation and those were limited to health studies. Our main conclusion is that swift administration of pandemic-related choice experiments has overall resulted in certain degrees of compromise in study quality, but this has been more so the case in relation to transport topics than health topics.

The Preferences for Attributes of Initial COVID-19 Diagnosis in the US and China during the Pandemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Propensity Score Matching

Background

China and the United States play critical leading roles in the global effort to contain the COVID-19 virus. Therefore, their population’s preferences for initial diagnosis were compared to provide policy and clinical insights.

Objective

We aim to quantify and compare the public’s preferences for medical management of fever and the attributes of initial diagnosis in the case of presenting symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in China and the United States.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study from January to March 2021 in China and the United States using an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire distributed through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; in the United States) and recruited volunteers (in China). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match the 2 groups of respondents from China and the United States to minimize confounding effects. In addition, the respondents’ preferences for different diagnosis options were evaluated using a mixed logit model (MXL) and latent class models (LCMs). Moreover, demographic data were collected and compared using the chi-square test, Fisher test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

A total of 9112 respondents (5411, 59.4%, from China and 3701, 40.6%, from the United States) who completed our survey were included in our analysis. After PSM, 1240 (22.9%) respondents from China and 1240 (33.5%) from the United States were matched for sex, age, educational level, occupation, and annual salary levels. The segmented sizes of 3 classes of respondents from China were 870 (70.2%), 270 (21.8%), and 100 (8.0%), respectively. Meanwhile, the US respondents’ segmented sizes were 269 (21.7%), 139 (11.2%), and 832 (67.1%), respectively. Respondents from China attached the greatest importance to the type of medical institution (weighted importance=40.0%), while those from the United States valued the waiting time (weighted importance=31.5%) the most. Respondents from China preferred the emergency department (coefficient=0.973, reference level: online consultation) and fever clinic (a special clinic for the treatment of fever patients for the prevention and control of acute infectious diseases in China; coefficient=0.974, reference level: online consultation), while those from the United States preferred private clinics (general practices; coefficient=0.543, reference level: online consultation). Additionally, shorter waiting times, COVID-19 nucleic acid testing arrangements, higher reimbursement rates, and lower costs were always preferred.

Conclusions

Improvements in the availability of COVID-19 testing and medical professional skills and increased designated health care facilities may help boost potential health care seeking during COVID-19 and prevent unrecognized community spreading of SARS-CoV-2 in China and the United States. Moreover, to better prevent future waves of pandemics, identify undiagnosed patients, and encourage those undiagnosed to seek health care services to curb the pandemic, the hierarchical diagnosis and treatment system needs improvement in China, and the United States should focus on reducing diagnosis costs and raising the reimbursement rate of medical insurance.

Providing laypeople with results from dynamic infectious disease modelling studies affects their allocation preference for scarce medical resources-a factorial experiment

BACKGROUND

Allocation of scarce medical resources can be based on different principles. It has not yet been investigated which allocation schemes are preferred by medical laypeople in a particular situation of medical scarcity like an emerging infectious disease and how the choices are affected by providing information about expected population-level effects of the allocation scheme based on modelling studies. We investigated the potential benefit of strategic communication of infectious disease modelling results.

METHODS

In a two-way factorial experiment (n = 878 participants), we investigated if prognosis of the disease or information about expected effects on mortality at population-level (based on dynamic infectious disease modelling studies) influenced the choice of preferred allocation schemes for prevention and treatment of an unspecified sexually transmitted infection. A qualitative analysis of the reasons for choosing specific allocation schemes supplements our results.

RESULTS

Presence of the factor "information about the population-level effects of the allocation scheme" substantially increased the probability of choosing a resource allocation system that minimized overall harm among the population, while prognosis did not affect allocation choices. The main reasons for choosing an allocation scheme differed among schemes, but did not differ among those who received additional model-based information on expected population-level effects and those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing information on the expected population-level effects from dynamic infectious disease modelling studies resulted in a substantially different choice of allocation schemes. This finding supports the importance of incorporating model-based information in decision-making processes and communication strategies.

Exit strategies from lockdowns due to COVID-19: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, countries have adopted various degrees of restrictive measures on people to reduce COVID-19 transmission. These measures have had significant social and economic costs. In the absence of therapeutics, and low vaccination coverage, strategies for a safe exit plan from a lockdown are required to mitigate the transmission and simultaneously re-open societies. Most countries have outlined or have implemented lockdown exit plans. The objective of this scoping review is to (a) identify and map the different strategies for exit from lockdowns, (b) document the effects of these exit strategies, and (c) discuss features of successful exit strategies based on the evidence.

METHODS

A five-step approach was used in this scoping review: (a) identifying the research question and inclusion/exclusion criteria; (b) searching the literature using keywords within PubMed and WHO databases; (c) study selection; (d) data extraction; (e) collating results and qualitative synthesis of findings.

RESULTS

Of the 406 unique studies found, 107 were kept for full-text review. Studies suggest the post-peak period as optimal timing for an exit, supplemented by other triggers such as sufficient health system capacity, and increased testing rate. A controlled and step-wise exit plan which is flexible and guided by information from surveillance systems is optimal. Studies recommend continued use of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as physical distancing, use of facemasks, and hygiene measures, in different combinations when exiting from a lockdown, even after optimal vaccination coverage has been attained.

CONCLUSION

Reviewed studies have suggested adopting a multi-pronged strategy consisting of different approaches depending on the context. Among the different exit strategies reviewed (phase-wise exit, hard exit, and constant cyclic patterns of lockdown), phase-wise exit appears to be the optimal exit strategy.

Location, location, location: a discrete choice experiment to inform COVID-19 vaccination programme delivery in the UK

BACKGROUND

Large-scale vaccination is fundamental to combatting COVID-19. In March 2021, the UK's vaccination programme had delivered vaccines to large proportions of older and more vulnerable population groups; however, there was concern that uptake would be lower among young people. This research was designed to elicit the preferences of 18-29-year-olds regarding key delivery characteristics and assess the influence of these on intentions to get vaccinated, to inform planning for this cohort.

METHODS

From 25 March to 2 April 2021, an online sample of 2012 UK adults aged 18-29 years participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants made six choices, each involving two SMS invitations to book a vaccination appointment and an opt-out. Invitations had four attributes (1 × 5 levels, 3 × 3 levels): delivery mode, appointment timing, proximity, and sender. These were systematically varied according to a d-optimal design. Responses were analysed using a mixed logit model.

RESULTS

The main effects logit model revealed a large alternative-specific constant (β = 1.385, SE = 0.067, p < 0.001), indicating a strong preference for 'opting in' to appointment invitations. Pharmacies were dispreferred to the local vaccination centre (β = - 0.256, SE = 0.072, p < 0.001), appointments in locations that were 30-45 min travel time from one's premises were dispreferred to locations that were less than 15 min away (β = - 0.408, SE = 0.054, p < 0.001), and, compared to invitations from the NHS, SMSs forwarded by 'a friend' were dispreferred (β = - 0.615, SE = 0.056, p < 0.001) but invitations from the General Practitioner were preferred (β = 0.105, SE = 0.048, p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that the existing configuration of the UK's vaccination programme was well-placed to deliver vaccines to 18-29-year-olds; however, some adjustments might enhance acceptance. Local pharmacies were not preferred; long travel times were a disincentive but close proximity (0-15 min from one's premises) was not necessary; and either the 'NHS' or 'Your GP' would serve as adequate invitation sources. This research informed COVID-19 policy in the UK, and contributes to a wider body of Discrete Choice Experiment evidence on citizens' preferences, requirements and predicted behaviours regarding COVID-19.