Assessing willingness to pay for HIV vaccines in Vietnam: A contingent valuation method study

Abstract

Objective: HIV has infected approximately 75 million people worldwide with over half dying from AIDS-related diseases. This study aimed to determine individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP) for future HIV vaccines.

Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted in December 2022 in Southern Vietnam with 1 675 face-to-face interviews. WTP was determined using the contingent valuation method with two bidding games under three vaccine efficacy scenarios (high, medium, low) for both self-vaccination and child vaccination.

Results: Among 1 655 valid respondents, 553 were willing to pay for their children’s vaccination. Overall, the WTP of adults for the HIV vaccine was (4961 264±3793 652) VND (23700 VND = 1 US dollar). The WTP of parents is (4947 799±4930 721) VND for self-vaccination and (4865 399±4064 567) VND for vaccinating their children. Average WTP decreased with lower vaccine efficacy and lower bid prices. Education level, marital status, occupation, and monthly income were significantly associated with WTP for all vaccination types.

Conclusions: In this study, high WTP rates and numerous individuals willing to pay for HIV vaccines were found. These findings can help decision-makers understand factors influencing WTP for future HIV vaccines and provide evidence for developing funding programs and budgeting plans for introducing such vaccines in Vietnam.

Keywords

Policy making / Price setting / Universal immunization / Vaccine / Vietnam

References

[1] The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Fact sheet-World AIDS day 2019: UNAIDS; 2019. [Online]. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet. [Assessed on 8 May 2020].

[2] Frank TD, Carter A, Jahagirdar D, Biehl MH, Douwes-Schultz D, Larson SL, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and mortality of HIV, 1980-2017, and forecasts to 2030, for 195 countries and territories: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017. Lancet HIV 2019; 6(12): e831-e859.

[3] Vo LT, Phan DQ, Quang BVK, Vo LY, Nguyen HTM, Gyan A, et al. Antiretroviral therapy adherence among people living with HIV in Vietnamusing a multi-method tool: A cross-sectional study. Asian Pac J Trop Med 2025; 18(4): 156-164.

[4] Bishai D, Pariyo G, Ainsworth M, Hill K. Determinants of personal demand for an AIDS vaccine in Uganda: Contingent valuation survey. Bull World Health Organ 2004; 82(9): 652-660.

[5] HIV . gov. HIV vaccine: HOV.gov; 2020. [Online]. Available from: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/hiv-prevention/potential-future-options/hiv-vaccines. [Assessed on 8 May 2020].

[6] Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999; 47(2): 97-123.

[7] Nyasani DK, Mutua GN, Sajabi RM, Wairimu Ng’ang’a J, Gachie JN, Maina AM, et al. Reported willingness to participate in a hypothetical HIV vaccine trial and its translation to actual participation among healthy adults—Experience from Kenya. PLoS One 2018; 13(11): e0206656.

[8] Carson RT. Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J Econ Perspect 2012; 26(4): 27-42.

[9] Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993; 58(10): 4601-4614.

[10] Kobelt G. Health economics: An introduction to economic evaluation. London, UK: Office of Health Economics; 2013, p. 108.

[11] Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S. Sample size determination in health studies: A practical manual. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1991, p. 80.

[12] Vo TQ, Tran QV, Vo NX. Customers’ preferences and willingness to pay for a future dengue vaccination: A study of the empirical evidence in Vietnam. Patient Prefer Adherence 2018; 12: 2507-2515.

[13] Haab TC, McConnell KE. Valuing environmental and natural resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation. 1st ed. Ohio, US: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2002, p. 352.

[14] Lusardi A, Schneider DJ, Tufano P. Financial fragility households: Evidence and implications. Massachusetts, US: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2011, p. 53.

[15] Steigenberger C, Flatscher-Thoeni M, Siebert U, Leiter AM. Determinants of willingness to pay for health services: A systematic review of contingent valuation studies. Eur J Health Econ 2010; 23(9): 1455-1482.

[16] Odhiambo J. HIV vaccine clinical trials: An overview. Med Write 2018; 27: 23-29.

[17] Birhane MG, Miranda MEG, Dyer JL, Blanton JD, Recuenco S. Willingness to pay for dog rabies vaccine and registration in Ilocos Norte, Philippines (2012). PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2016; 10(3): e0004486.

[18] Hansen KS, Pedrazzoli D, Mbonye A, Clarke S, Cundill B, Magnussen P, et al. Willingness-to-pay for a rapid malaria diagnostic test and artemisinin-based combination therapy from private drug shops in Mukono District, Uganda. Health Policy Plan 2013; 28(2): 185-196.

[19] Sauerborn R, Gbangou A, Dong H, Przyborski JM, Lanzer M. Willingness to pay for hypothetical malaria vaccines in rural Burkina Faso. Scand J Public Health 2005; 33(2): 146-150.

[20] O’brien RM. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 2007; 41(5): 673-690.

[21] Breusch TS. Testing for autocorrelation in dynamic linear models. Aust Econ Pap 1978; 17(31): 334-355.

[22] Glejser H. A new test for heteroskedasticity. J Am Stat Assoc 1969; 64(325): 316-323.

[23] Yap BW, Sim CH. Comparisons of various types of normality tests. J Stat Comput Simul 2011; 81(12): 2141-2155.

[24] Dhimal M, Aryal KK, Dhimal ML, Gautam I, Singh SP, Bhusal CL, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice regarding dengue fever among the healthy population of highland and lowland communities in central Nepal. PLoS One 2014; 9(7): e110605.

[25] Koenraadt CJ, Tuiten W, Sithiprasasna R, Kijchalao U, Jones JW, Scott TW. Dengue knowledge and practices and their impact on Aedes aegypti populations in Kamphaeng Phet, Thailand. Am J Trop 2006; 74(4): 692-700.

[26] Suraratdecha C, Ainsworth M, Tangcharoensathien V, Whittington D. The private demand for an AIDS vaccine in Thailand. Health Policy 2005; 71(3): 271-287.

[27] Brackstone K, Marzo RR, Bahari R, Head MG, Patalinghug ME, Su TT. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and confidence in the Philippines and Malaysia: A cross-sectional study of sociodemographic factors and digital health literacy. PLoS Glob Public Health 2022; 2(10): e0000742.

[28] Elsayed M, El-Abasiri RA, Dardeer KT, Kamal MA, Htay MNN, Abler B, et al. Factors influencing decision making regarding the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination in Egypt: A cross-sectional study in an urban, well-educated sample. Vaccines 2021; 10(1): 20.

[29] King I, Heidler P, Marzo RR. The long and winding road: Uptake, acceptability, and potential influencing factors of COVID-19 vaccination in Austria. Vaccines 2021; 9(7): 790.

[30] Kyaw TM, Win LL, Han YM, Marzo RR, Arif MHBC, Shamilie NFBH, et al. Digital health literacy and vaccine hesitancy among different age groups: A cross sectional study in Malaysia 2021. Eur J Biomed Pharm Sci 2022; 9(12): 13-26.

[31] Marzo R, Ahmad A, Abid K, Khatiwada A, Ahmed A, Kyaw T, et al. Factors influencing the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination: A cross-sectional study from Malaysia. Vacunas (English Edition) 2022; 23: S33-S40.

[32] Marzo RR, Ahmad A, Islam MS, Essar MY, Heidler P, King I, et al. Perceived COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, acceptance, and drivers of vaccination decision-making among the general adult population: A global survey of 20 countries. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2022; 16(1): e0010103.

[33] Marzo RR, Chakraborty R, Soh SY, Thew HZ, Chong C, Siau CS, et al. Factors influencing parents’ hesitancy to vaccinate their children aged 5-11 years old against COVID-19: Results from a cross-sectional study in Malaysia. Front Public Health 2023; 11: 1091015.

[34] Marzo RR, Sami W, Alam MZ, Acharya S, Jermsittiparsert K, Songwathana K, et al. Hesitancy in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and its associated factors among the general adult population: A cross-sectional study in six Southeast Asian countries. Trop Med Health 2022; 50: 1-10.

[35] Marzo RR, Shrestha R, Sapkota B, Acharya S, Shrestha N, Pokharel M, et al. Perception towards vaccine effectiveness in controlling COVID-19 spread in rural and urban communities: A global survey. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 958668.

[36] Marzo RR, Su TT, Ismail R, Htay MNN, Essar MY, Chauhan S, et al. Digital health literacy for COVID-19 vaccination and intention to be immunized: A cross sectional multi-country study among the general adult population. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 998234.

[37] Rahbeni TA, Satapathy P, Itumalla R, Marzo RR, Mugheed KA, Khatib MN, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2024; 10: e54769.

[38] Kanninen BJ. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 1995; 28(1): 114-125.

[39] Leggett CG, Kleckner NS, Boyle KJ, Dufield JW, Mitchell RC. Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Econ 2003; 79(4): 561-575.

[40] Hanley N, Ryan M, Wright R. Estimating the monetary value of health care: Lessons from environmental economics. J Health Econ 2003; 12(1): 3-16.

[41] Cook J, Whittington D, Canh DG, Johnson FR, Nyamete A. Reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue, Vietnam. Econ Inq 2007; 45(1): 100-114.

[42] Holmes TP, Adamowicz WL, Carlsson F. Choice experiments. In: Patricia A. Champ, Kevin J. Boyle, Brown TC, editors. A primer on nonmarket valuation. 2nd ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Dordrecht; 2017, p. 133-186.