Search results1 – 3 of 3
To measure adolescent girls’ preferences over features of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in order to provide quantitative estimates of the perceived benefits of…
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 article aims to provide an informed overview of the current policy and upcoming e‐cigarette legislation, and their impact on the potential for harm reduction in the…
This article aims to provide an informed overview of the current policy and upcoming e‐cigarette legislation, and their impact on the potential for harm reduction in the tobacco products arena in the USA. The article argues in favor of reasonable regulatory options supportive of harm reduction, and which take into consideration the realities of the emerging US e‐cigarette market.
The authors consider the recent refocus on harm reduction potential in the e‐cigarettes, which are growing in popularity but will be soon subject to potentially very restrictive regulation. This article provides an overview of selected, relevant provisions of the US tobacco product regulatory framework as it may soon apply to e‐cigarettes, not only for the benefit of the tobacco harm reduction debate, but also to global stakeholders, as well.
FDA needs strong leadership to avoid current political pressures to label all tobacco products as equally dangerous, vilify nicotine and deny a reasonable approach to harm reduction that promotes the benefits of reduced risk as a legitimate approach to better health. Admittedly, more research is needed before a final assessment can be made on the population‐level health benefits of e‐cigarettes.
This article provides an informed view of US e‐cigarette industry regulatory challenges by two industry regulatory experts, and an overview of possible e‐cigarette regulatory outcomes in the USA, in light of the US Food and Drug Administration announcement that such regulation is to be expected shortly.
This investigation/report/reflection was motivated largely by the occasion of the first Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) “Summer School” in…
This investigation/report/reflection was motivated largely by the occasion of the first Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) “Summer School” in North America.1 But its roots reach down as well to other recent reflection/investigation pieces, in particular, Mathews (1997), Gray (2002, 2006), and Deegan and Soltys (2007). The last of these authors note (p. 82) that CSEAR Summer Schools were initiated in Australasia, at least partly as a means to spur interest and activity in social and environmental accounting (SEA) research. So, too, was the first North American CSEAR Summer School.2 We believe, therefore, that it is worthwhile to attempt in some way to identify where SEA currently stands as a field of interest within the broader academic accounting domain in Canada and the United States.3 As well, however, we believe this is a meaningful time for integrating our views on the future of our chosen academic sub-discipline with those of Gray (2002), Deegan and Soltys (2007), and others. Thus, as the title suggests, we seek to identify (1) who the SEA researchers in North America are; (2) the degree to which North American–based accounting research journals publish SEA-related research; and (3) where we, the SEA sub-discipline within North America, might be headed. We begin with the who.