Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 May;17(3):319-333.
doi: 10.1007/s40271-024-00677-8. Epub 2024 Feb 23.

From Qualitative Research to Quantitative Preference Elicitation: An Example in Invasive Meningococcal Disease

Affiliations
Review

From Qualitative Research to Quantitative Preference Elicitation: An Example in Invasive Meningococcal Disease

Joshua Coulter et al. Patient. 2024 May.

Abstract

Background: Qualitative research is fundamental for designing discrete choice experiments (DCEs) but is often underreported in the preference literature. We developed a DCE to elicit preferences for vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) among adolescents and young people (AYP) and parents and legal guardians (PLG) in the United States. This article reports the targeted literature review and qualitative interviews that informed the DCE design and demonstrates how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies.

Methods: This study included two parts: a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews. The Medline and Embase databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies on IMD and immunization. The results of the targeted literature review informed a qualitative interview guide. Sixty-minute, online, semi-structured interviews with AYP and PLG were used to identify themes related to willingness to be vaccinated against IMD. Participants were recruited through a third-party recruiter's database and commercial online panels. Interviews included vignettes about IMD and vaccinations and three thresholding exercises examining the effect of incidence rate, disability rate, and fatality rate on vaccination preferences. Participant responses related to the themes were counted.

Results: The targeted literature review identified 31 concepts that were synthesized into six topics for the qualitative interviews. Twenty AYP aged 16-23 years and 20 PLG of adolescents aged 11-17 years were interviewed. Four themes related to willingness to be vaccinated emerged: attitudes towards vaccination, knowledge and information, perception of IMD, and vaccine attributes. Most participants were concerned about IMD (AYP 60%; PLG 85%) and had positive views of vaccination (AYP 80%; PLG 60%). Ninety percent of AYP and 75% of PLG always chose vaccination over no vaccination, independent of IMD incidence rate, disability rate, or fatality rate.

Conclusion: Willingness to be vaccinated against IMD was affected by vaccine attributes but largely insensitive to IMD incidence and severity. This article provides an example of how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies, with 21 out of 22 items in the guidelines being considered.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Joshua Coulter, Brett Hauber, Joseph C. Cappelleri, Paula Peyrani, Jessica Vespa Presa and Katharina Schley are employees and may hold stocks or stock options in Pfizer Inc.. Chiara Whichello, Sebastian Heidenreich, Christine Michaels-Igbokwe, and Malavika Venkatraman are employees of Evidera, which was paid by Pfizer for the development of this manuscript.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Vignette 1: disease context and health outcomes
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Vignette 2: willingness to be vaccinated
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Vignette 3: recommendations and access
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Example thresholding exercise
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Conceptual map of themes identified from the qualitative interviews. The four main themes are shown in the circles, and the subthemes are shown in the ovals. HCPs healthcare providers, IMD invasive meningococcal disease

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):298–313. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hollin IL, Craig BM, Coast J, Beusterien K, Vass C, DiSantostefano R, Peay H. Reporting formative qualitative research to support the development of quantitative preference study protocols and corresponding survey instruments: guidelines for authors and reviewers. Patient. 2020;13(1):121–136. - PubMed
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357. - PubMed
    1. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181. - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Jong Y, van der Willik EM, Milders J, Voorend CGN, Morton RL, Dekker FW, et al. A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):184. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances