A latent class analysis of factors influencing preferences for infant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventives among pregnant people in the United States.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Taylor & Francis Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101572652 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2164-554X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 21645515 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Hum Vaccin Immunother Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: 2015- : Philadelphia, PA : Taylor & Francis
      Original Publication: Austin, Tex. : Landes Bioscience
    • Subject Terms:
      Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections*/prevention & control ; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines*/immunology ; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines*/administration & dosage ; Latent Class Analysis* ; Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human*/immunology; Humans ; Female ; Pregnancy ; United States ; Adult ; Young Adult ; Infant ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Patient Preference/statistics & numerical data ; Vaccination/statistics & numerical data ; Pregnant Women/psychology ; Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use ; Adolescent
    • Abstract:
      A maternal vaccine and long-acting monoclonal antibody (mAb) were recently approved to protect infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We identified subgroups of pregnant people with different preferences for RSV preventives and respondent characteristics associated with subgroup membership. An online survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was conducted among US pregnant people. RSV preventive attributes included effectiveness, duration of protection during RSV season, injection recipient/timing, preventive type (vaccine or mAb), and type of visit required to receive injection. In DCE choice tasks, pregnant people selected between two hypothetical preventive profiles with varying attribute-levels and a no-preventive option. Logistic regression, including latent class analysis (LCA), was used to analyze the data. Of 992 pregnant people (mean age: 30.0 years), 60.3% were expecting their second/later birth. LCA identified three preference subgroups: 'Effectiveness' (preventive choice mostly driven by increases in effectiveness; 51.4% class membership probability), 'Season' (preventive choice mostly driven by improvement in duration of protection during the RSV season; 39.2% class membership probability), and 'No Preventive' (frequently chose no-preventive option; 9.4% class membership probability). 'Effectiveness' and 'Season' preferred maternal vaccine over mAb; mAb was preferred by 'No Preventive.' Perceiving RSV as serious for infants, higher health literacy, and lower household income were associated with 'Effectiveness.' Perceiving RSV as serious for pregnant people was associated with 'Season.' Perceiving RSV to not be serious for pregnant people and not being employed were associated with 'No Preventive.' Subgroups of pregnant people vary in preferences for RSV preventives. Most pregnant people preferred a maternal vaccine, although some may be more willing to accept alternative preventive options.
    • References:
      Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201-226. (PMID: 30392040)
      J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Jul 29;3(1):51. (PMID: 31359289)
      Fam Med. 2004 Sep;36(8):588-94. (PMID: 15343421)
      Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Feb;36(2):175-187. (PMID: 28975582)
      N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 30;383(5):415-425. (PMID: 32726528)
      BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 1;20(1):828. (PMID: 32487041)
      Patient. 2017 Dec;10(6):687-700. (PMID: 28474295)
      Nurs Res. 2002 Nov-Dec;51(6):404-10. (PMID: 12464761)
      Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Jan;129(1):125-37. (PMID: 2910056)
      J Infect Dis. 2019 Oct 22;220(11):1802-1815. (PMID: 31402384)
      Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):300-15. (PMID: 27325321)
      Front Public Health. 2021 Jun 04;9:673698. (PMID: 34150710)
      MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72(34):920-925. (PMID: 37616235)
      Vaccines (Basel). 2024 May 20;12(5):. (PMID: 38793811)
      Public Health Rep. 2021 Nov-Dec;136(6):699-709. (PMID: 33508208)
      JAMA. 2022 Nov 11;:. (PMID: 36368010)
      Pharmacoeconomics. 2021 Mar;39(3):287-315. (PMID: 33462760)
      N Engl J Med. 2022 Mar 3;386(9):837-846. (PMID: 35235726)
      Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Apr;226(4):459-474. (PMID: 34774821)
      J Infect Dis. 2022 Jun 15;225(12):2067-2076. (PMID: 34146100)
      Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Jun;38(6):593-606. (PMID: 32128726)
      N Engl J Med. 2023 Apr 20;388(16):1451-1464. (PMID: 37018474)
      BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Jan 14;22(1):33. (PMID: 35030996)
      Value Health. 2022 May;25(5):685-694. (PMID: 35500943)
      BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 24;11(4):e046563. (PMID: 33895717)
      Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020 May 3;16(5):1109-1117. (PMID: 32078395)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Maternal vaccination; monoclonal antibodies; preference heterogeneity; preferences; pregnant people; respiratory syncytial virus
    • Accession Number:
      0 (Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines)
      0 (Antibodies, Monoclonal)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20240607 Date Completed: 20240607 Latest Revision: 20240612
    • Publication Date:
      20240612
    • Accession Number:
      PMC11164215
    • Accession Number:
      10.1080/21645515.2024.2358566
    • Accession Number:
      38847198