Discrete choice experiments: An overview of experience to date in haemophilia

1 Livingstone H, Verdiel V, Crosbie H, Upadhyaya S, Harris K, Thomas L. Evaluation of the impact of patient input in health technology assessments at NICE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2021; 37(1), E33. doi: 10.1017/S0266462320002214. LivingstoneH VerdielV CrosbieH UpadhyayaS HarrisK ThomasL Evaluation of the impact of patient input in health technology assessments at NICE Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2021 37 1 E33 10.1017/S0266462320002214 33509314 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

2 Wale JL, Sullivan M. Exploration of the visibility of patient input in final recommendation documentation for three health technology assessment bodies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2020; 36(3): 197–203. doi: 10.1017/S0266462320000240. WaleJL SullivanM Exploration of the visibility of patient input in final recommendation documentation for three health technology assessment bodies Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2020 36 3 197 203 10.1017/S0266462320000240 32375904 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

3 van Overbeeke E, Forrester V, Simoens S, Huys I. Use of patient preferences in health technology assessment: perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA representatives. Patient 2021; 14(1): 119–128. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0. van OverbeekeE ForresterV SimoensS HuysI Use of patient preferences in health technology assessment: perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA representatives Patient 2021 14 1 119 128 10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0 779420432856278 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

4 United States Government. An Act to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes. Public Law 114–255. 114th Congress. H.R. 34. 2016. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr34enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr34enr.pdf (accessed 14 March 2022). United States Government An Act to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes Public Law 114–255. 114th Congress. H.R. 34. 2016. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr34enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr34enr.pdf (accessed 14 March 2022). Search in Google Scholar

5 Gabay M. 21st century cures act. Hosp Pharm 2017; 52(4): 264–265. doi: 10.1310/hpj5204-264. GabayM 21st century cures act Hosp Pharm 2017 52 4 264 265 10.1310/hpj5204-264 542482928515504 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

6 Gerstein HC, McMurray J, Holman RR. Real-world studies no substitute for RCTs in establishing efficacy. Lancet 2019; 393(10168):210–211. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32840-X. GersteinHC McMurrayJ HolmanRR Real-world studies no substitute for RCTs in establishing efficacy Lancet 2019 393 10168 210 211 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32840-X 30663582 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

7 Mott DJ. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: Is HTA falling behind? Patient 2018; 11(3): 249–252. doi: 10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9. MottDJ Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: Is HTA falling behind? Patient 2018 11 3 249 252 10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9 29500706 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

8 EMA. PRIME: priority medicines [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/prime-priority-medicines (accessed 2 July 2020). EMA PRIME: priority medicines [Internet] 2016 Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/prime-priority-medicines (accessed 2 July 2020). Search in Google Scholar

9 FDA. Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review (accessed 2 July 2020). FDA Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review [Internet] 2018 Available from: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review (accessed 2 July 2020). Search in Google Scholar

10 MHRA. Guidance on Project Orbis [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-project-orbis (accessed 14 March 2022). MHRA Guidance on Project Orbis [Internet] 2020 Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-project-orbis (accessed 14 March 2022). Search in Google Scholar

11 MHRA. Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/innovative-licensing-and-access-pathway (accessed 14 March 2022). MHRA Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway [Internet] 2021 Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/innovative-licensing-and-access-pathway (accessed 14 March 2022). Search in Google Scholar

12 Spoors J, Miners A, Cairns J, et al. Payer and implementation challenges with advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). BioDrugs 2021; 35: 1–5. doi: 10.1007/s40259-020-00457-4. SpoorsJ MinersA CairnsJ Payer and implementation challenges with advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) BioDrugs 2021 35 1 5 10.1007/s40259-020-00457-4 33226582 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

13 MDIC. MDIC Patient-Centred Benefit-Risk Project Report: A Framework for Incorporating Information on Patient Preferences Regarding Benefit and Risk into Regulatory Assessments of New Medical Technology. 2015. Available from https://www.fda.gov/media/95591/download (accessed 14 March 2022). MDIC MDIC Patient-Centred Benefit-Risk Project Report: A Framework for Incorporating Information on Patient Preferences Regarding Benefit and Risk into Regulatory Assessments of New Medical Technology 2015 Available from https://www.fda.gov/media/95591/download (accessed 14 March 2022). Search in Google Scholar

14 Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A Framework for Incorporating Patient Preferences Regarding Benefits and Risks into Regulatory Assessment of Medical Technologies. Value Health 2016; 19(6): 746–750. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.019. HoM SahaA McClearyKK A Framework for Incorporating Patient Preferences Regarding Benefits and Risks into Regulatory Assessment of Medical Technologies Value Health 2016 19 6 746 750 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.019 27712701 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

15 Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan 2009; 151–8. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czn047. ManghamLJ HansonK McPakeB How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country Health Policy Plan 2009 151 8 10.1093/heapol/czn047 19112071 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

16 Brown TM, Pashos CL, Joshi AV., Lee WC. The perspective of patients with haemophilia with inhibitors and their care givers: Preferences for treatment characteristics. Haemophilia 2011; 17(3): 476–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02401.x. BrownTM PashosCL JoshiAV. LeeWC The perspective of patients with haemophilia with inhibitors and their care givers: Preferences for treatment characteristics Haemophilia 2011 17 3 476 82 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02401.x 21091851 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

17 Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(9): 883–902. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x. ClarkMD DetermannD PetrouS MoroD de Bekker-GrobEW Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature Pharmacoeconomics 2014 32 9 883 902 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x 25005924 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

18 Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics 2019; 37(2): 201–226. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2. SoekhaiV de Bekker-GrobEW EllisAR VassCM Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future Pharmacoeconomics 2019 37 2 201 226 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2 638605530392040 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

19 Vass C, Payne K. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the benefit-risk assessment of medicines: Are we ready yet? Pharmacoeconomics 2017; 35: 859–66. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0518-0. VassC PayneK Using discrete choice experiments to inform the benefit-risk assessment of medicines: Are we ready yet? Pharmacoeconomics 2017 35 859 66 10.1007/s40273-017-0518-0 556334728536955 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

20 BMJ Best Practice. Haemophilia [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/468 (accessed 30 July 2020). BMJ Best Practice Haemophilia [Internet] 2019 Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/468 (accessed 30 July 2020). Search in Google Scholar

21 National Hemophilia Foundation. History of Bleeding Disorders [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.hemophilia.org/Bleeding-Disorders/History-of-Bleeding-Disorders (accessed 30 July 2020). National Hemophilia Foundation History of Bleeding Disorders [Internet] 2020 Available from: https://www.hemophilia.org/Bleeding-Disorders/History-of-Bleeding-Disorders (accessed 30 July 2020). Search in Google Scholar

22 Specialist Pharmacy Service. SPS Horizon Scanning Service [Internet]. Available from: https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/sps-horizon-scanning-service/ (accessed 6 January 2022). Specialist Pharmacy Service SPS Horizon Scanning Service [Internet] Available from: https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/sps-horizon-scanning-service/ (accessed 6 January 2022). Search in Google Scholar

23 Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis – Principles of good practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 2014; 17(1): 5–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291. SullivanSD MauskopfJA AugustovskiF Budget impact analysis – Principles of good practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force Value Health 2014 17 1 5 14 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291 24438712 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

24 Terris-Prestholt F, Quaife M, Vickerman P. Parameterising user uptake in economic evaluations: the role of discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2016; 25 (Suppl 1): 116–23. doi: 10.1002/hec.3297. Terris-PrestholtF QuaifeM VickermanP Parameterising user uptake in economic evaluations: the role of discrete choice experiments Health Econ 2016 25 Suppl 1 116 23 10.1002/hec.3297 506664426773825 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

25 Quaife M, Terris-Prestholt F, Di Tanna GL, Vickerman P. How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity. Eur J Heal Econ 2018; 19(8): 1053–1066. doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-0954-6. QuaifeM Terris-PrestholtF Di TannaGL VickermanP How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity Eur J Heal Econ 2018 19 8 1053 1066 10.1007/s10198-018-0954-6 29380229 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

26 Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5(1): 210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. OuzzaniM HammadyH FedorowiczZ ElmagarmidA Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews Syst Rev 2016 5 1 210 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 513914027919275 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

27 Mantovani LG, Monzini MS, Mannucci PM, et al. Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2005; 11(6): 589–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01159.x. MantovaniLG MonziniMS MannucciPM Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: A discrete choice experiment Haemophilia 2005 11 6 589 97 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01159.x 16236108 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

28 Lee WC, Joshi AV, Woolford S, et al. Physicians’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates in the treatment of haemophilia with inhibitors: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2008; 454–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01656.x. LeeWC JoshiAV WoolfordS Physicians’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates in the treatment of haemophilia with inhibitors: A discrete choice experiment Haemophilia 2008 454 65 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01656.x 18282152 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

29 Scalone L, Mantovani LG, Borghetti F, von Mackensen S, Gringeri A. Patients’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates to treat haemophilia with inhibitors: Results from the COHIBA Study. Haemophilia 2009; 15(2): 473–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01926.x. ScaloneL MantovaniLG BorghettiF von MackensenS GringeriA Patients’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates to treat haemophilia with inhibitors: Results from the COHIBA Study Haemophilia 2009 15 2 473 86 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01926.x 19347988 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

30 Mohamed AF, Epstein JD, Li-Mcleod JM. Patient and parent preferences for haemophilia A treatments. Haemophilia 2011; 17(2): 209–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02411.x. MohamedAF EpsteinJD Li-McleodJM Patient and parent preferences for haemophilia A treatments Haemophilia 2011 17 2 209 14 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02411.x 21070493 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

31 Gelhorn H, Merikle E, Krishnan S, Nemes L, Leissinger C, Valentino L. Physician preferences for medication attributes for the prophylactic treatment of patients with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors to factor VIII. Haemophilia 2013; 19(1): 119–25. doi: 10.1111/hae.12011. GelhornH MerikleE KrishnanS NemesL LeissingerC ValentinoL Physician preferences for medication attributes for the prophylactic treatment of patients with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors to factor VIII Haemophilia 2013 19 1 119 25 10.1111/hae.12011 23005041 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

32 Chaugule SS, Hay JW, Young G. Understanding patient preferences and willingness to pay for hemophilia therapies. Patient Prefer Adherence 2015; 9: 1623–30. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S92985. ChauguleSS HayJW YoungG Understanding patient preferences and willingness to pay for hemophilia therapies Patient Prefer Adherence 2015 9 1623 30 10.2147/PPA.S92985 464660026635471 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

33 Lock J, de Bekker-Grob EW, Urhan G, et al. Facilitating the implementation of pharmacokinetic-guided dosing of prophylaxis in haemophilia care by discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2016; 22(1): e1–e10. doi: 10.1111/hae.12851. LockJ de Bekker-GrobEW UrhanG Facilitating the implementation of pharmacokinetic-guided dosing of prophylaxis in haemophilia care by discrete choice experiment Haemophilia 2016 22 1 e1 e10 10.1111/hae.12851 26612493 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

34 Fifer S, Kerr AM, Parken C, Hamrosi K, Eid S. Treatment preferences in people with haemophilia A or caregivers of people with haemophilia A: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2020; 26(Suppl 5): 30–40. doi: 10.1111/hae.14037. FiferS KerrAM ParkenC HamrosiK EidS Treatment preferences in people with haemophilia A or caregivers of people with haemophilia A: A discrete choice experiment Haemophilia 2020 26 Suppl 5 30 40 10.1111/hae.14037 32935396 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

35 Su J, Li N, Joshi N, et al. Patient and caregiver preferences for haemophilia A treatments: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2020; 26(6): e291–e299. doi: 10.1111/hae.14137. SuJ LiN JoshiN Patient and caregiver preferences for haemophilia A treatments: A discrete choice experiment Haemophilia 2020 26 6 e291 e299 10.1111/hae.14137 32937681 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

36 Park YS, Hwang TJ, Cho GJ, et al. Patients’ and parents’ satisfaction with, and preference for, haemophilia A treatments: a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study. Haemophilia 2021; 27(4): 563–573. doi: 10.1111/hae.14304. ParkYS HwangTJ ChoGJ Patients’ and parents’ satisfaction with, and preference for, haemophilia A treatments: a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study Haemophilia 2021 27 4 563 573 10.1111/hae.14304 836214434128300 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

37 Witkop M, Morgan G, O’Hara J, et al. Patient preferences and priorities for haemophilia gene therapy in the US: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2021; 27(5): 769–782. doi: 10.1111/hae.14383. WitkopM MorganG O’HaraJ Patient preferences and priorities for haemophilia gene therapy in the US: A discrete choice experiment Haemophilia 2021 27 5 769 782 10.1111/hae.14383 929045734310811 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

38 Tegenge MA, Belov A, Moncur M, Forshee R, Irony T. Comparing clotting factors attributes across different methods of preference elicitation in haemophilia patients. Haemophilia 2020; 26(5): 817–825. doi: 10.1111/hae.14119. TegengeMA BelovA MoncurM ForsheeR IronyT Comparing clotting factors attributes across different methods of preference elicitation in haemophilia patients Haemophilia 2020 26 5 817 825 10.1111/hae.14119 32842165 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

39 Botteman M, Martin S, Ng X, Joshi N, Shah R. PSY201 A systematic review of discrete choice experiments in hemophilia. Value Health 2018; 21 (Suppl 3): S470. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2775. BottemanM MartinS NgX JoshiN ShahR PSY201 A systematic review of discrete choice experiments in hemophilia Value Health 2018 21 Suppl 3 S470 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2775 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

40 Morgan G, Martin A, Mighiu C, et al. PMU95 A systematic literature review of preference studies in haemophilia. Value Health 2020; 23 (Suppl 2): S619. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020-08-1307. MorganG MartinA MighiuC PMU95 A systematic literature review of preference studies in haemophilia Value Health 2020 23 Suppl 2 S619 10.1016/j.jval.2020-08-1307 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

41 Sutphin J, Bartelt-Hofer J, Leach C, et al. Treatment preferences in hemophilia: results from a targeted literature review. Poster presented at the Virtual EAHAD 2021 Congress; February 3, 2021. [abstract] Haemophilia. 2021 Feb; 27(S2):134. doi: 10.1111/hae.14236. SutphinJ Bartelt-HoferJ LeachC Treatment preferences in hemophilia: results from a targeted literature review Poster presented at the Virtual EAHAD 2021 Congress February 3, 2021 [abstract] Haemophilia 2021 Feb 27 S2 134 10.1111/hae.14236 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

42 van Overbeeke E, Hauber B, Michelsen S, et al. Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey. Haemophilia 2021; 27(6): 957–966. doi: 10.1111/hae.14401. van OverbeekeE HauberB MichelsenS Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey Haemophilia 2021 27 6 957 966 10.1111/hae.14401 929317334472162 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

43 Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, et al. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today 2019; 24(7): 1324–1331. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001. SoekhaiV WhichelloC LevitanB Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review Drug Discov Today 2019 24 7 1324 1331 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001 31077814 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

44 van Overbeeke E, Hauber B, Michelsen S, Goldman M, Simoens S, Huys I. Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol development for the PAVING Study in hemophilia. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020; 8: 595797. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.595797. van OverbeekeE HauberB MichelsenS GoldmanM SimoensS HuysI Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol development for the PAVING Study in hemophilia Front Med (Lausanne) 2020 8 595797 10.3389/fmed.2021.595797 798505633768101 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

45 Vass C, Davison NJ, Stichele G Vander, Payne K. A picture is worth a thousand words: The role of survey training materials in stated-preference studies. Patient 2020; 13: 163–173. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w. VassC DavisonNJ VanderStichele G PayneK A picture is worth a thousand words: The role of survey training materials in stated-preference studies Patient 2020 13 163 173 10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w 707582531565784 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

46 Lim SL, Yang JC, Ehrisman J, Havrilesky LJ, Reed SD. Are videos or text better for describing attributes in stated-preference surveys? Patient 2020; 13(4): 401–408. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00416-9. LimSL YangJC EhrismanJ HavrileskyLJ ReedSD Are videos or text better for describing attributes in stated-preference surveys? Patient 2020 13 4 401 408 10.1007/s40271-020-00416-9 32239442 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

47 Wang X, Cheng Z. Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest 2020; 158(1S): S65–S71. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012. WangX ChengZ Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations Chest 2020 158 1S S65 S71 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012 32658654 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

48 Veldwijk J, Johansson JV, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob EW. Mimicking real-life decision making in health: Allowing respondents time to think in a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2020; 23(7): 945–952. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.014. VeldwijkJ JohanssonJV DonkersB de Bekker-GrobEW Mimicking real-life decision making in health: Allowing respondents time to think in a discrete choice experiment Value Health 2020 23 7 945 952 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.014 32762997 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

49 Liao Q, Lam WWT, Wong CKH, Lam C, Chen J, Fielding R. The relative effects of determinants on Chinese adults’ decision for influenza vaccination choice: What is the effect of priming? Vaccine 2019; 37(30):4124–4132. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.072. LiaoQ LamWWT WongCKH LamC ChenJ FieldingR The relative effects of determinants on Chinese adults’ decision for influenza vaccination choice: What is the effect of priming? Vaccine 2019 37 30 4124 4132 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.072 31186189 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

50 Infected Blood Inquiry [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 8 September 2021). Infected Blood Inquiry [Internet] 2021 Available from: https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 8 September 2021). Search in Google Scholar

51 Smith LE, Sim J, Amlôt R, et al. Side-effect expectations from COVID-19 vaccination: Findings from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS – wave 2). J Psychosom Res 2021;152: 110679. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110679. SmithLE SimJ AmlôtR Side-effect expectations from COVID-19 vaccination: Findings from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS – wave 2) J Psychosom Res 2021 152 110679 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110679 859530534823113 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar