Exploring Knowledge Attitudes and Perspectives on Respiratory Viruses Vaccination Among Older Adults in the US
Author(s)
Matthieu Beuvelet, PharmD1, Keila Meginnis, Ph.D.2, Caroline de Courville, EMAM1, Maribel Tribaldos, Ph.D.1, Antonio Robles, Ph.D.1, Gabriela Fernandez, MPH3, Hannah Collacott, M.Sc.3, Matthew Quaife, Ph.D.2.
1Sanofi, Lyon, France, 2PPD, Evidera, Thermo Fisher, London, United Kingdom, 3PPD, Evidera, Thermo Fisher, Bethesda, MD, USA.
1Sanofi, Lyon, France, 2PPD, Evidera, Thermo Fisher, London, United Kingdom, 3PPD, Evidera, Thermo Fisher, Bethesda, MD, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Respiratory viruses (RV), including influenza (flu), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), and parainfluenza virus type 3 (PIV3) are major contributors to respiratory diseases in older populations. This study aimed to understand older adults’ knowledge and experience with RV, characterize attitudes around single and combination RV vaccinations, and define key vaccine characteristics influencing individuals’ decision-making.
METHODS: A semi-structured interview guide was developed using insights from a targeted literature review. Ten interviews were conducted May-August 2024 with adults aged ≥50 years in the United States. Sociodemographic and clinical experience data were quantitatively summarised; audio data were transcribed and coded to identify common themes among participants’ responses. Findings informed a vaccine preference survey, maximizing participant-relevance of attributes and definitions.
RESULTS: Participants had a median age of 63 (range 53-68) and were predominantly female (n=7). Almost all had flu experience (n=9), with fewer reporting RSV experience (n=2). Perceived risk of contracting RV was split, with approximately half perceiving their risk as high or low (n=4 each). Most expressed concern about experiencing severe (n=9) or mild-to-moderate (n=6) RV symptoms. Nearly all had prior RV vaccine experience (n=9), primarily seeking RV vaccines to reduce the risk of illness (n=7) or illness severity (n=5). Despite limited familiarity with combination vaccines (n=7), participants predominantly valued vaccination characteristics discussed, valuing convenience (n=8), efficacy (n=5), and fewer injections (n=5). Perspectives on protection duration varied; some preferred extended duration of protection given fewer appointments, while a small number worried about forgetting less frequent vaccinations. Participants showed greater concern for systemic adverse events than injection site reactions, though both influenced attitudes towards single and combination vaccination.
CONCLUSIONS: Older adults' RV vaccine decision-making is influenced by efficacy, convenience, and safety. Interview insights helped define eight attributes for a subsequent stated preference survey exploring the trade-offs individuals are willing to make between RV vaccines characteristics.
METHODS: A semi-structured interview guide was developed using insights from a targeted literature review. Ten interviews were conducted May-August 2024 with adults aged ≥50 years in the United States. Sociodemographic and clinical experience data were quantitatively summarised; audio data were transcribed and coded to identify common themes among participants’ responses. Findings informed a vaccine preference survey, maximizing participant-relevance of attributes and definitions.
RESULTS: Participants had a median age of 63 (range 53-68) and were predominantly female (n=7). Almost all had flu experience (n=9), with fewer reporting RSV experience (n=2). Perceived risk of contracting RV was split, with approximately half perceiving their risk as high or low (n=4 each). Most expressed concern about experiencing severe (n=9) or mild-to-moderate (n=6) RV symptoms. Nearly all had prior RV vaccine experience (n=9), primarily seeking RV vaccines to reduce the risk of illness (n=7) or illness severity (n=5). Despite limited familiarity with combination vaccines (n=7), participants predominantly valued vaccination characteristics discussed, valuing convenience (n=8), efficacy (n=5), and fewer injections (n=5). Perspectives on protection duration varied; some preferred extended duration of protection given fewer appointments, while a small number worried about forgetting less frequent vaccinations. Participants showed greater concern for systemic adverse events than injection site reactions, though both influenced attitudes towards single and combination vaccination.
CONCLUSIONS: Older adults' RV vaccine decision-making is influenced by efficacy, convenience, and safety. Interview insights helped define eight attributes for a subsequent stated preference survey exploring the trade-offs individuals are willing to make between RV vaccines characteristics.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
PCR92
Topic
Methodological & Statistical Research, Patient-Centered Research
Disease
Respiratory-Related Disorders (Allergy, Asthma, Smoking, Other Respiratory), Vaccines