Search results

To measure adolescent girls’ preferences over features of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in order to provide quantitative estimates of the perceived benefits of vaccination and potential vaccine uptake.

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was developed to measure adolescent girls’ preferences over features of HPV vaccines. The survey was fielded to a U.S. sample of 307 girls aged 13–17 years who had not yet received an HPV vaccine in June 2008.

In a latent class logit model, two distinct groups were identified – one with strong preferences against vaccination which largely did not differentiate between vaccine features, and another that was receptive to vaccination and had well-defined preferences over vaccine features. Based on the mean estimates over the entire sample, we estimate that girls’ valuation of bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines ranged between $400 and $460 in 2008, measured as willingness-to-pay (WTP). The additional value of genital warts protection was $145, although cervical cancer efficacy was the most preferred feature. We estimate maximum uptake of 54–65%, close to the 53% reported for one dose in 2011 surveillance data, but higher than the 35% for three doses in surveillance data.

We conclude that adolescent girls do form clear opinions and some place significant value on HPV vaccination, making research on their preferences vital to understanding the determinants of HPV vaccine demand.

DCE studies may be used to design more effective vaccine-promotion programs and for reassessing public health recommendations and guidelines as new vaccines are made available.

This ethnographic case study examined college pathways of rural, first-generation students. Current research primarily examines factors predicting rural students’ college aspirations, participation, and completion. This study examined why and how such factors influenced students in a rural, high-poverty county and explored how rural culture influenced pathways. The study found that attachment to family significantly influenced college-going decisions and behaviors. Families provided support necessary for high aspirations, college-going, and persistence. Students’ decision to leave, return, or stay was difficult given this attachment; yet, lack of economic opportunity affected decisions also. Cultural legacies influenced college-going. Schools, communities, and peers were also relevant. Given the importance of family, institutional, state, and federal policies and practices must involve families and replicate family support models.

This chapter reports estimates of consumers’ preferences for plans to improve food safety.

The plans are distinguished based on whether they address the ex ante risk of food borne illness or the ex post effects of the illness. They are also distinguished based on whether they focus on a public good – reducing risk of illness for all consumers or allowing individual households to reduce their private risks of contracting a food borne pathogen.

Based on a National Survey conducted in 2007 using the Knowledge Network internet panel, our findings indicate consumers favor ex ante risk reductions and are willing to pay approximately $250 annually to reduce the risk of food borne illness. Moreover, they prefer private to public approaches and would not support efforts to reduce the severity of cases of illness over risk reductions.

This study is the first research that allows a comparison of survey respondents’ choices between public and private mechanisms for ex ante risk reductions.

United States Air Force (USAF) acquisition programs have historically suffered from extended acquisition cycle times and cost and schedule overruns. Department of Defense senior leadership has called for "transformation" of the acquisition process. In this article, we investigate an Evolutionary Acquisition (EA) strategy and the spiral development process. This article presents the case study analysis of three USAF acquisition programs: Global Hawk, B-2 Bomber, and Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV). Data were collected through extensive literature review, interviews with acquisition experts from the three program offices, and completed questionnaires from members of Air Force Materiel Command’s (AFMC) Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE), Aeronautical Systems Center’s (ASC) Transformation Team, and ASC’s ACE.