Cash incentives, ethics, and COVID-19 vaccination

Jecker, Nancy S.

doi:10.1126/science.abm6400

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-monetary incentives (such as t-shirts or granting freedoms) have also been effective [243,244]. Monetary incentives have had mixed results in the general population [245][246][247], and they can be complicated by ethical concerns [248]. Other recommendations include harnessing social media, acknowledging concerns, expressing empathy, and avoiding using dogmatic, moralistic tones when discussing vaccination [249].…”

Section: Towards the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers—A Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated vaccine have highlighted vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs). Vaccine hesitancy among this group existed prior to the pandemic and particularly centered around influenza vaccination. Being a physician, having more advanced education, and previous vaccination habits are frequently associated with vaccine acceptance. The relationship between age and caring for patients on COVID-19 vaccination is unclear, with studies providing opposing results. Reasons for hesitancy include concerns about safety and efficacy, mistrust of government and institutions, waiting for more data, and feeling that personal rights are being infringed upon. Many of these reasons reflect previous attitudes about influenza vaccination as well as political beliefs and views of personal autonomy. Finally, several interventions to encourage vaccination have been studied, including education programs and non-monetary incentives with the most effective studies using a combination of methods.

show abstract

Section: Towards the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers—A Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Policies to incentive vaccination through monetary transfers and lotteries have been rather discussed in the literature, finding possible benefits in the face of ethical and equity issues (Jecker (2021), Dotlic et al (2021), Kim (2021), Sprengholz et al (2021)). This paper aims to study in-depth the vaccine lotteries promoted in different states of the United States, looking at the different results obtained at the county and state level and analyzing the role of timing in announcing such policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This result is significant for our analysis, as it allows us to compare lotteries across states, even if the amounts dispensed or the probability of winning varied across states. Jecker (2021) discussed that although monetary incentives can be effective, they are distorting, as poorer people have a greater incentive to participate in politics. Therefore a monetary incentive could be considered unethical, and it conveys the idea that the vaccination choice can be direct.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The policy is always greener: impact heterogeneity of Covid-19 vaccination lotteries in the US

Grossi¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Covid-19 vaccination has posed crucial challenges to policymakers and health administrations worldwide. In addition to the pressure posed by the pandemic, government administration has to strive against vaccine hesitancy, which seems to be considerably higher concerning previous vaccination rollouts.To increase the vaccination protection of the population, Ohio announced a monetary incentive as a lottery for those who decided to vaccinate. This first example was followed by 18 other states, with varying results.In this paper, we want to evaluate the effect of such policies within the potential outcome framework, using the penalized synthetic control method. We treat with a panel dataset and estimate causal effects at a disaggregated level in the context of staggered treatment adoption. We focused on policy outcomes at the county, state, and supra-state levels, highlighting differences between counties with different social characteristics and time frames for policy introduction. We also studied the nature of the treatment effect to see whether the impact of these monetary incentives was permanent or only temporary, accelerating the vaccination of citizens who would have been vaccinated in any case.

show abstract

“…Aiming to enhance the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates, governments around the world are applying various policies for affecting individuals' vaccination preferences, ranging from informative campaigns about the benefits of the vaccine to banned participation of un-vaccinated individuals in public events, cash rewards for those who get the shot and even mandatory vaccination [11][12][13][14]. These tactics, which represent different levels of government intrusiveness in individuals' autonomous choice to get vaccinated [15,16], may vary in their effectiveness on vaccination acceptance in the current pandemic and against other diseases [13,[17][18][19]. However, it is hard to tell whether such policies will be as effective for additional and periodical booster shots in the future, since repetitive adherence to health behaviors may require different incentives than one-time behaviors [20,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to boost the boosters? A survey-experiment on the effectiveness of different policies aimed at enhancing acceptance of a “Seasonal” vaccination against COVID-19

Goren

Beeri

Vashdi

2022

Isr J Health Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence suggests a gradual decrease in the effectiveness of the anti-COVID-19 vaccines, stressing the potential need for periodical booster shots. However, it is hard to tell whether previously applied policies for enhancing vaccine acceptance will be as effective for repeated periodical booster shots during a pandemic. Hence, this study aims to explore the effectiveness of different health policies on periodical vaccination acceptance amidst an ongoing pandemic. Methods A cross sectional online experiment was performed in a representative sample of 929 Israeli citizens. Participants were randomly allocated to 4 groups simulating different hypothetical periodical-vaccination-promoting policy scenarios: (1) Mandate (N = 229); (2) a negative monetary incentive (N = 244); (3) a positive monetary incentive (N = 228) and (4) information provision (N = 228). Compliance intentions and vaccine-acceptance-related variables were measured. Analysis included multivariate hierarchic logistic and linear regressions. Results Compliance intentions levels were medium (M = 3.13 on a 1–5 scale). Only 20.2% of the sample demonstrated strong acceptance of periodical vaccination, which is lower than the acceptance rate of the seasonal flu shot in the country in the year preceding the pandemic. Type of policy was related to the extent to which a respondent strongly agreed to be periodically vaccinated or not. Specifically, strong acceptance was more likely when positive or negative incentives were presented in comparison to the mandate or information provision conditions. However, when examining the extent of compliance among respondents who were less decisive, the type of policy did not predict the extent to which these respondents intended to comply. In addition, compliance intentions were related with the perceived benefits and barriers of the vaccine, the perceived efficacy of getting vaccinated and social norms. Hesitator’s intentions were additionally associated with anti-COVID-19 vaccination history, perceived severity of the disease and trust in government. Conclusions Pandemic-containing vaccines may be perceived as less effective and beneficial than pandemic-preventing vaccines. Individuals with different levels of motivation for periodical vaccination during a pandemic may be affected by different factors. While strongly opinionated individuals are affected by the type of vaccination-promoting policy, hesitators are affected by a larger number of factors, which provide policy makers with greater opportunities to enhance their vaccination intentions.

show abstract

Cash incentives, ethics, and COVID-19 vaccination

Abstract: We can pay people to vaccinate, but should we?

Cited by 21 publications

References 11 publications

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers—A Review

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers—A Review

The policy is always greener: impact heterogeneity of Covid-19 vaccination lotteries in the US

How to boost the boosters? A survey-experiment on the effectiveness of different policies aimed at enhancing acceptance of a “Seasonal” vaccination against COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About