Identifying the drivers of vaccine adoption decisions under varying levels of perceived disease risk and benefit provides insight into what can limit or enhance vaccination uptake. To address the relationship of perceived benefit relative to temporal and spatial risk, we surveyed 432 pastoralist households in northern Tanzania on vaccination for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Unlike human health vaccination decisions where beliefs regarding adverse, personal health effects factor heavily into perceived risk, decisions for animal vaccination focus disproportionately on dynamic risks to animal productivity. We extended a commonly used stated preference survey methodology, willingness to pay, to elicit responses for a routine vaccination strategy applied biannually and an emergency strategy applied in reaction to spatially variable, hypothetical outbreaks. Our results show that households place a higher value on vaccination as perceived risk and household capacity to cope with resource constraints increase, but that the episodic and unpredictable spatial and temporal spread of FMD contributes to increased levels of uncertainty regarding the benefit of vaccination. In addition, concerns regarding the performance of the vaccine underlie decisions for both routine and emergency vaccination, indicating a need for within community messaging and documentation of the household and population level benefits of FMD vaccination.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,291,659
of 27,965,929 outputs
Outputs from Vaccine
#1,112
of 17,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,463
of 345,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vaccine
#15
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,965,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
