Search

Over the last decades, drinking water and energy use have increased exponentially. To preserve ecosystems in the long term, a change in behavior is necessary on all levels of society including on the household level. This paper presents an integrated review of the determinants of long-term drinking water and energy conservation behavior of households. We identified forty-nine relevant studies discussing long-term conservation behavior in the context of drinking water and energy use. Long-term conservation behavior was measured as either persistent behavior, maintaining behavioral change, or intentions to maintain behavior, each with specific determinants. We found four key factors for long-term conservation behavior: consumption feedback, household characteristics, effort, and motives for conservation behavior. For future studies, we suggest follow-up questionnaires or interviews to measure the persistence of behavior and differentiate between curtailment and efficiency behavior. Worthwhile avenues for future research on long-term conservation behavior are household-tailored feedback mechanisms and the interaction between contextual factors and effort-based choices.

BackgroundVaccine uptake differs between social groups. Mobile vaccination units (MV-units) were deployed in the Netherlands by municipal health services in neighbourhoods with low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines.AimWe aimed to evaluate the impact of MV-units on vaccine uptake in neighbourhoods with low vaccine uptake.MethodsWe used the Dutch national-level registry of COVID-19 vaccinations (CIMS) and MV-unit deployment registrations containing observations in 253 neighbourhoods where MV-units were deployed and 890 contiguous neighbourhoods (total observations: 88,543 neighbourhood-days). A negative binomial regression with neighbourhood-specific temporal effects using splines was used to study the effect.ResultsDuring deployment, the increase in daily vaccination rate in targeted neighbourhoods ranged from a factor 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-2.2) in urbanised neighbourhoods to 14.5 (95% CI: 11.6-18.0) in rural neighbourhoods. The effects were larger in neighbourhoods with more voters for the Dutch conservative Reformed Christian party but smaller in neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of people with non-western migration backgrounds. The absolute increase in uptake over the complete intervention period ranged from 0.22 percentage points (95% CI: 0.18-0.26) in the most urbanised neighbourhoods to 0.33 percentage point (95% CI: 0.28-0.37) in rural neighbourhoods.ConclusionDeployment of MV-units increased daily vaccination rate, particularly in rural neighbourhoods, with longer travel distance to permanent vaccination locations. This public health intervention shows promise to reduce geographic and social health inequalities, but more proactive and long-term deployment is required to identify its potential to substantially contribute to overall vaccination rates at country level.

BackgroundVaccine uptake differs between social groups. Mobile vaccination units (MV-units) were deployed in the Netherlands by municipal health services in neighbourhoods with low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines.AimWe aimed to evaluate the impact of MV-units on vaccine uptake in neighbourhoods with low vaccine uptake.MethodsWe used the Dutch national-level registry of COVID-19 vaccinations (CIMS) and MV-unit deployment registrations containing observations in 253 neighbourhoods where MV-units were deployed and 890 contiguous neighbourhoods (total observations: 88,543 neighbourhood-days). A negative binomial regression with neighbourhood-specific temporal effects using splines was used to study the effect.ResultsDuring deployment, the increase in daily vaccination rate in targeted neighbourhoods ranged from a factor 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-2.2) in urbanised neighbourhoods to 14.5 (95% CI: 11.6-18.0) in rural neighbourhoods. The effects were larger in neighbourhoods with more voters for the Dutch conservative Reformed Christian party but smaller in neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of people with non-western migration backgrounds. The absolute increase in uptake over the complete intervention period ranged from 0.22 percentage points (95% CI: 0.18-0.26) in the most urbanised neighbourhoods to 0.33 percentage point (95% CI: 0.28-0.37) in rural neighbourhoods.ConclusionDeployment of MV-units increased daily vaccination rate, particularly in rural neighbourhoods, with longer travel distance to permanent vaccination locations. This public health intervention shows promise to reduce geographic and social health inequalities, but more proactive and long-term deployment is required to identify its potential to substantially contribute to overall vaccination rates at country level.

11 januari 2023, Contains fulltext : 289506.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

This 'cohort profile' aims to provide a description of the study design, methodology, and baseline characteristics of the participants in the Corona Behavioral Unit cohort. This cohort was established in response to the COVID-19 pandemic by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and the regional public health services. The aim was to investigate adherence of and support for COVID-19 prevention measures, psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 behaviors, well-being, COVID-19 vaccination, and media use. The cohort also examined specific motivations and beliefs, such as for vaccination, which were collected through either closed-ended items or open text responses. In April 2020, 89,943 participants aged 16 years and older were recruited from existing nation-wide panels. Between May 2020 and September 2022, 99,676 additional participants were recruited through online social media platforms and mailing lists of higher education organizations. Participants who consented were initially invited every three weeks (5 rounds), then every six weeks (13 rounds), and since the summer of 2022 every 12 weeks (3 rounds). To date, 66% of participants were female, 30% were 39 years and younger, and 54% completed two or more questionnaires, with an average of 9.2 (SD = 5.7) questionnaires. The Corona Behavioral Unit COVID-19 cohort has published detailed insights into longitudinal patterns of COVID-19 related behaviors, support of COVID-19 preventive measures, as well as peoples' mental wellbeing in relation to the stringency of these measures. The results have informed COVID-19 policy making and pandemic communication in the Netherlands throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The cohort data will continuously be used to examine COVID-19 related outcomes for scientific analyses, as well as to inform future pandemic preparedness plans.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic forms an unprecedented public health, economic, and social crisis. Uptake of vaccination is critical for controlling the pandemic. Nevertheless, vaccination hesitancy is considerable, requiring policies to promote uptake. We investigate Dutch citizens’ preferences for policies that aim to promote vaccination through facilitating choice of vaccination, profiling it as the norm, making vaccination more attractive through rewards, or punishing people who reject vaccination. Methods: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 747 respondents were asked to choose between policies to promote vaccination uptake and their impacts on the number of deaths, people with permanent health problems, households with income loss, and a tax increase. Results: Respondents generally had a negative preference for policies that promote vaccination. They particularly disliked policies that punish those who reject the vaccine and were more favorable toward policies that reward vaccination, such as awarding additional rights to vaccinated individuals through vaccination passports. Respondents who reject vaccination were in general much more negative about the policy options than respondents who consider accepting the vaccine. Nevertheless, vaccination passports are supported by both respondents who accept the vaccine, those who reject vaccination, and those who are unsure about vaccination. Conclusions: This study provides concrete directions for governments attempting to increase the vaccination uptake in ways that are supported by the public. Our results could encourage policy makers to focus on policy options that make vaccination easier and reward people who take the vaccine, as especially the implementation of vaccination passports was supported., Transport and Logistics

Background: Vaccination is generally considered the most direct way to restoring normal life after the outbreak of COVID-19, but the available COVID-19 vaccines are simultaneously embraced and dismissed. Mapping factors for vaccine hesitancy may help the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines and provide valuable insights for future pandemics. Objectives: We investigate how characteristics of a COVID-19 vaccine affect the preferences of adult citizens in the Netherlands to take the vaccine directly, to refuse it outright, or to wait a few months and first look at the experiences of others. Methods: An online sample of 895 respondents participated between November 4th and November 10th, 2020 in a discrete choice experiment including the attributes: percentage of vaccinated individuals protected against COVID-19, month in which the vaccine would become available and the number of cases of mild and severe side effects. The data was analysed by means of panel mixed logit models. Results: Respondents found it important that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine becomes available as soon as possible. However, the majority did not want to be the first in line and would rather wait for the experiences of others. The predicted uptake of a vaccine with the optimal combination of attributes was 87%, of whom 55% preferred to take the vaccine after a waiting period. This latter group tends to be lower-educated. Older respondents gave more weight to vaccine effectiveness than younger respondents. Conclusions: The willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high among adults in the Netherlands, but a considerable proportion prefers to delay their decision to vaccinate until experiences of others are known. Offering this wait-and-see group the opportunity to accept the invitation at a later moment may stimulate vaccination uptake. Our results further suggest that vaccination campaigns targeted at older citizens should focus on the effectiveness of the vaccine., Transport and Logistics

Contains fulltext : 283192.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), High vaccination coverage is considered to be key in dealing with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy can limit uptake. We examined the specific coronavirus beliefs that persons have regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines and to what extent these beliefs explain COVID-19 vaccination intentions. We conducted a survey among 4,033 residents of the Netherlands that examined COVID-19 vaccination intentions and various beliefs. Random forest regression analysis explained 76% of the variance in vaccination intentions. The strongest determinant in the model was the belief the COVID-19 crisis will only end if many persons get vaccinated. Other strong determinants were beliefs about safety of vaccines, specifically in relation to vaccine development and approval process; (social) benefits of vaccination; social norms regarding vaccination behavior; and effectiveness of vaccines. We propose to address these specific beliefs in communications about COVID-19 vaccinations to stimulate vaccine uptake.

Introduction Currently, it is not known what attributes of health care interventions citizens consider important in disinvestment decision-making (i.e. decisions to discontinue reimbursement). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the preferences of citizens of the Netherlands toward the relative importance of attributes of health care interventions in the context of disinvestment. Methods A participatory value evaluation (PVE) was conducted in April and May 2020. In this PVE, 1143 Dutch citizens were asked to save at least €100 million by selecting health care interventions for disinvestment from a list of eight unlabeled health care interventions, described solely with attributes. A portfolio choice model was used to analyze participants' choices. Results Participants preferred to disinvest health care interventions resulting in smaller gains in quality of life and life expectancy that are provided to older patient groups. Portfolios (i.e. combinations of health care interventions) resulting in smaller savings were preferred for disinvestment over portfolios with larger savings. Conclusion The disinvestment of health care interventions resulting in smaller health gains and that are targeted at older patient groups is likely to receive most public support. By incorporating this information in the selection of candidate interventions for disinvestment and the communication on disinvestment decisions, policymakers may increase public support for disinvestment., Transport and Logistics

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic forms an unprecedented public health, economic, and social crisis. Uptake of vaccination is critical for controlling the pandemic. Nevertheless, vaccination hesitancy is considerable, requiring policies to promote uptake. We investigate Dutch citizens’ preferences for policies that aim to promote vaccination through facilitating choice of vaccination, profiling it as the norm, making vaccination more attractive through rewards, or punishing people who reject vaccination. Methods We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 747 respondents were asked to choose between policies to promote vaccination uptake and their impacts on the number of deaths, people with permanent health problems, households with income loss, and a tax increase. Results Respondents generally had a negative preference for policies that promote vaccination. They particularly disliked policies that punish those who reject the vaccine and were more favorable toward policies that reward vaccination, such as awarding additional rights to vaccinated individuals through vaccination passports. Respondents who reject vaccination were in general much more negative about the policy options than respondents who consider accepting the vaccine. Nevertheless, vaccination passports are supported by both respondents who accept the vaccine, those who reject vaccination, and those who are unsure about vaccination. Conclusions This study provides concrete directions for governments attempting to increase the vaccination uptake in ways that are supported by the public. Our results could encourage policy makers to focus on policy options that make vaccination easier and reward people who take the vaccine, as especially the implementation of vaccination passports was supported.

Background: Vaccination is generally considered the most direct way to restoring normal life after the outbreak of COVID-19, but the available COVID-19 vaccines are simultaneously embraced and dismissed. Mapping factors for vaccine hesitancy may help the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines and provide valuable insights for future pandemics. Objectives: We investigate how characteristics of a COVID-19 vaccine affect the preferences of adult citizens in the Netherlands to take the vaccine directly, to refuse it outright, or to wait a few months and first look at the experiences of others. Methods: An online sample of 895 respondents participated between November 4th and November 10th, 2020 in a discrete choice experiment including the attributes: percentage of vaccinated individuals protected against COVID-19, month in which the vaccine would become available and the number of cases of mild and severe side effects. The data was analysed by means of panel mixed logit models. Results: Respondents found it important that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine becomes available as soon as possible. However, the majority did not want to be the first in line and would rather wait for the experiences of others. The predicted uptake of a vaccine with the optimal combination of attributes was 87%, of whom 55% preferred to take the vaccine after a waiting period. This latter group tends to be lower-educated. Older respondents gave more weight to vaccine effectiveness than younger respondents. Conclusions: The willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high among adults in the Netherlands, but a considerable proportion prefers to delay their decision to vaccinate until experiences of others are known. Offering this wait-and-see group the opportunity to accept the invitation at a later moment may stimulate vaccination uptake. Our results further suggest that vaccination campaigns targeted at older citizens should focus on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Background: Active disinvestment of healthcare interventions (i.e. discontinuing reimbursement by means of a policy decision) has received limited public support in the past. Previous research has identified four viewpoints on active disinvestment among citizens in the Netherlands. However, it remained unclear how strong these viewpoints are supported by society, and by whom. Therefore, the current study aimed to 1) measure the support for these four viewpoints and 2) assess whether support is associated with background characteristics of citizens. Method: In an online survey, a representative sample of adult citizens in the Netherlands (n = 1794) was asked to rate their agreement with short narratives of the four viewpoints on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey also included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, health status, healthcare utilization, and opinions about responsibility and costs in the healthcare context. Logistic regression models were estimated for each viewpoint to assess the association between viewpoint support and these characteristics. Results: The support for the different viewpoints varied between 46.8% and 57.7% of the sample. Viewpoint support was associated with participants’ age, gender, educational level, financial situation, healthcare utilization, opinion on the responsibility of the government for the health of citizens, and opinion on whether the increase in healthcare expenditure and health insurance premiums is considered a problem. Conclusion: Resistance to active disinvestment may partially be explained by the consequences of disinvestment citizens anticipate experiencing themselves. Citizens considering the increase in healthcare expenditure a larger problem were more supportive of disinvestment than those considering it less of a problem.

Contains fulltext : 237709.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Objectives: Our study investigates the extent to which uptake of a COVID-19 digital contact-tracing (DCT) app among the Dutch population is affected by its configurations, its societal effects, and government policies toward such an app. Methods: We performed a discrete choice experiment among Dutch adults including 7 attributes, that is, who gets a notification, waiting time for testing, possibility for shops to refuse customers who have not installed the app, stopping condition for contact tracing, number of people unjustifiably quarantined, number of deaths prevented, and number of households with financial problems prevented. The data were analyzed by means of panel mixed logit models. Results: The prevention of deaths and financial problems of households had a very strong influence on the uptake of the app. Predicted app uptake rates ranged from 24% to 78% for the worst and best possible app for these societal effects. We found a strong positive relationship between people's trust in government and people's propensity to install the DCT app. Conclusions: The uptake levels we find are much more volatile than the uptake levels predicted in comparable studies that did not include societal effects in their discrete choice experiments. Our finding that the societal effects are a major factor in the uptake of the DCT app results in a chicken-or-the-egg causality dilemma. That is, the societal effects of the app are severely influenced by the uptake of the app, but the uptake of the app is severely influenced by its societal effects., Transport and Logistics

Om COVID-19 goed onder controle te kunnen houden moet ongeveer 70% van de Nederlanders gevaccineerd zijn. Er is ruim draagvlak onder Nederlanders voor invoering van een vaccinatiebewijs om mensen actief te stimuleren zich te laten vaccineren. Een vaccinatiebewijs biedt meer vrijheden aan mensen die het vaccin wel nemen, bijvoorbeeld om reguliere activiteiten te blijven doen tijdens een uitbraak of evenementen te bezoeken waar 1,5 meter afstand houden niet goed mogelijk is. Zo blijkt uit representatief onderzoek onder 1.640 Nederlanders dat is uitgevoerd door wetenschappers van de TU Delft, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, RIVM, Universiteit Maastricht en Roskilde University.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent the outcomes of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) differ based on respondents' psychological distance to the decision at hand. Methods: A DCE questionnaire regarding individuals' preferences for genetic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) within the Dutch national CRC screening program was created. The DCE contained nine D-efficient designed choice tasks and was distributed among two populations that differ in their psychological distance to the decision at hand: 1) a representative sample of the Dutch general population aged 55-65 years, and 2) a sample of Dutch individuals who attended an information appointment regarding colonoscopies following the detection of blood in their stool sample in the CRC screening program. The DCE consisted of four attributes related to the decision whether to participate in genetic screening for CRC: 1) risk of being genetically predisposed, 2) risk of developing CRC, 3) frequency of follow-up colonoscopies, and 4) survival. Direct attribute ranking, dominant decision-making behavior, and relative importance scores (based on panel MIXL) were compared between the two populations. Attribute level estimates were compared with the Swait and Louviere test. Results: The proportion of respondents who both ranked survival as the most important attribute, and showed dominant decision-making behavior for this attribute, was significantly higher in the screened population compared to the general population. The relative importance scores of the attributes significantly differed between populations. Finally, the Swait and Louviere test also revealed significant differences in attribute level estimates in both the populations. Conclusion: The study outcomes differed between populations depending on their psychological distance to the decision. This study shows the importance of adequate sample selection; therefore, it is advocated to increase attention to study sample selecti

Contains fulltext : 204307.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Jorien Veldwijk,1–3 Catharina GM Groothuis-Oudshoorn,4 Ulrik Kihlbom,2,5,6 Sophie Langenskiöld,2,5,6 Evelien Dekker,7 Frank GJ Kallenberg,7 G Ardine de Wit,3,8 Mattijs S Lambooij3 1Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 2Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 3Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; 4Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands; 5Department of Health Economics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 6Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 7Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 8Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent the outcomes of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) differ based on respondents’ psychological distance to the decision at hand.Methods: A DCE questionnaire regarding individuals’ preferences for genetic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) within the Dutch national CRC screening program was created. The DCE contained nine D-efficient designed choice tasks and was distributed among two populations that differ in their psychological distance to the decision at hand: 1) a representative sample of the Dutch general population aged 55–65 years, and 2) a sample of Dutch individuals who attended an information appointment regarding colonoscopies following the detection of blood in their stool sample in the CRC screening program. The DCE consisted of four attributes related to the decision whether to participate in genetic screening for CRC: 1) risk of being genetically predisposed, 2) risk of d