Figure - available from: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Source publication
Vaccine hesitancy is a significant barrier to reaching herd immunity and exiting the Covid-19 pandemic. This study examines the potential effectiveness of monetary incentives in conjunction with informational treatments about vaccine efficacy, lack of side effects, and zero costs. We elicit monetary valuations (both positive and negative) for the c...
Similar publications
Background:
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has widely affected the global public health system, especially the emergency medical service (EMS), which has been the first responders since 2020. However, this pandemic persists with still limited studies on its impact on EMS. This study aimed to compare the number of EMS patients and the operatio...
Citations
... In particular, the paper focuses on the use of vaccine passports, and finds surprisingly they can reduce the prevalence of the disease, and increase hesitancy. Iyer et al. (2022) conduct an online randomized experiment on a sample of 2461 individual to analyze the effectiveness of informational campaigns and monetary incentives to reduce vaccine hesitancy. They found that a 1,000USD incentive increases vaccination rate up to 86.9%. ...
This paper focuses on the economics of vaccination and, more specifically, analyzes the vaccination decision of individuals using a game-theoretic model combined with an epidemiological SIR model that reproduces the infection dynamics of a generic disease. We characterize the equilibrium individual vaccination rate, and we show that it is below the rate compatible with herd immunity due to the existence of externalities that individuals do not internalize when they decide on vaccination. In addition, we analyze three public policies consisting of informational campaigns to reduce the disutility of vaccination, monetary payments to vaccinated individuals and measures to increase the disutility of non-vaccination. If the public authority uses only one type of policy, herd immunity is not necessarily achieved unless monetary incentives are used. When the public authority is not limited to use only one policy, we find that the optimal public policy should consist only of informational campaigns if they are sufficiently effective, or a combination of informational campaigns and monetary incentives otherwise. Surprisingly, the requirement of vaccine passports or other restrictions on the non-vaccinated are not desirable.
... A US online randomized experiment found that a $1,000 financial incentive increased the percentage of individuals who said that they would accept vaccination by 16% from a base uptake level of 70% (ref. 9). In contrast, an RCT involving cash incentives of up to 50 US dollars in a Medicaid managed care plan in California did not show an effect on vaccination uptake 10 . ...
We implemented a clustered randomized controlled trial with 6,963 residents in six rural Ghana districts to estimate the causal impact of financial incentives on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination uptake. Villages randomly received one of four video treatment arms: a placebo, a standard health message, a high cash incentive (60 Ghana cedis) and a low cash incentive (20 Ghana cedis). For the first co-primary outcome—COVID-19 vaccination intentions—non-vaccinated participants assigned to the cash incentive treatments had an average rate of 81% (1,733 of 2,168) compared to 71% (1,895 of 2,669) for those in the placebo treatment arm. For the other co-primary outcome of self-reported vaccinations 2 months after the initial intervention, the average rate for participants in the cash treatment was 3.5% higher than for participants in the placebo treatment (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.001, 6.9; P = 0.045): 40% (602 of 1,486) versus 36.3% (672 of 1,850). We also verified vaccination status of participants: in the cash treatment arm, 36.6% (355 of 1,058) of verified participants had at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to 30.3% (439 of 1,544) for those in the placebo—a difference of 6.3% (95% CI: 2.4, 10.2; P = 0.001). For the intention and the vaccination outcomes, the low cash incentive (20 Ghana cedis) had a larger positive effect on COVID-19 vaccine uptake than the high cash incentive (60 Ghana cedis). Trial identifier: AEARCTR-0008775.
... Another debatable strategy our informants mentioned, in combination with the other measures to boost vaccine acceptance, is the use of financial incentives. A financial incentive method was highly criticized in the literature as several studies yielded that small financial incentives do not meaningfully improve COVID-19 vaccination rates among the vaccinehesitant [29,30]. However, other studies indicated that financial incentives increased vaccination rates among adults when combined with other measures and multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions [8,31], which our informants also suggested. ...
Following the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, addressing vaccine hesitancy and optimizing uptake have emerged as critical challenges, emphasizing the importance of reducing barriers toward COVID-19 vaccination. This study investigates ideas on ways to reduce barriers to COVID-19 vaccination uptake. It explores methods that can overcome COVID-19 vaccination barriers through qualitative research: interviews and group discussions involving healthcare providers, administration personnel, teachers, and individuals with chronic conditions across urban (Mombasa) and rural (Kilifi) Kenya. Audio-recorded discussions were transcribed and thematically analyzed across locations. Five themes emerged in our results regarding the reduction in barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in the context of Kenya, including awareness campaigns, engaging diverse stakeholders, using various communication techniques, capacity building to increase vaccination centers and trained staff, and lastly, revising relevant government health policies and guidelines. These results indicate the importance of adopting multiple approaches, as no single strategy can boost vaccine acceptance. Moreover, this study provides recommendations for conceiving actionable interventions to potentially boost vaccine demand and maintain routine immunization in Kenya.
... Another debatable strategy our informants mentioned to go in combination with the other measures to boost vaccine acceptance is through the use of financial incentives. The financial incentive method was highly criticized in the literature as several studies yielded that small financial incentives do not meaningfully improve COVID-19 vaccination rates among vaccine-hesitant [29,30]. However, other studies indicate that financial incentives increased vaccination rates among adults when combined with other measures and multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions [31,32], which our informants also suggested. ...
Ever since the tremendous success of the rapid vaccine development against COVID‑19, its availa-bility, distribution, and deployment have been a significant concern; however, evidence suggests that vaccine hesitancy has become a greater problem. Therefore, trust in vaccines is crucial and critically dependent on regimes' ability to communicate the benefits of immunization. This study investigated ideas on ways to reduce barriers to COVID-19 vaccination uptake. It explores methods to overcome COVID-19 vaccine barriers through qualitative research: interviews and group discussions involving healthcare providers, administration personnel, teachers, and individuals with chronic conditions across urban (Mombasa) and rural (Kilifi) Kenya. Audio-recorded discussions were transcribed and thematically analyzed across locations. Five themes emerged in our results regarding how to reduce barriers to the COVID vaccine in the context of Kenya, including awareness campaigns, engaging diverse stakeholders, using various communication techniques, capacity building to increase vac-cination centers and trained staff, and lastly, revising relevant government health policies and guidelines. These results indicate the importance of adopting multiple approaches, as no single strategy could boost vaccine acceptance. Moreover, this study provides recommendations for con-ceiving actionable interventions to potentially boost vaccine demand and maintain routine immun-ization in Kenya.
... Incentive-based interventions (payments and lotteries) were used by different policy communities during the pandemic, yet evidence of effectiveness varies across studies [65,66]. For example, monetary incentives seem to raise vaccination likelihood for those who are reluctant to be vaccinated but not for the unwilling [67]. Meta-analyses find the study effect sizes to be small or non-existent [68,69]. ...
This paper examines possible causes, consequences, and potential solutions for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the United States, focusing on the perspectives of academic scientists. By examining the experiences of scientists, who are arguably a critical community in US society, we gain deeper insights into how they understand the complexities of vaccine hesitancy and whether their insights and opinions converge with or diverge from the current literature. We present findings from a national survey of a representative sample of academic scientists from the fields of biology and public health regarding vaccine hesitancy and related topics. Empirical analysis using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses covers multiple topics, including vaccine controversy, trust in science, causes of vaccine hesitancy, preferred policy and regulatory approaches, risk perceptions, and scientists’ ethics and perceived communication roles. The results highlight a diversity of opinions within the scientific community regarding how to improve science-society communication in regard to vaccines, including the need to be transparent and candid to the public about the risk of vaccines and their research.
... Additionally, a randomized controlled trial by Campos-Mercade and colleagues (Campos-Mercade et al., 2021), which evaluated both vaccine uptake and intentions, found that incentives increased intentions by 3.9% from a baseline of 83.2%. Of the 11 randomized survey designs, 4 found that financial incentives significantly increased vaccine intentions (Klüver et al., 2021;Robertson et al., 2021b;Iyer et al., 2022), 2 found that incentives had no impact on vaccine intentions (Sprengholz et al., 2021;Kreps et al., 2021), and 5 had mixed results (Serra-Garcia and Szech, 2022;Carpio et al., 2021;Stamm et al., 2022;Sprengholz et al., 2022). One of the four studies with mixed results found that incentives ...
... Studies examined guaranteed payments (k = 10), lotteries (k = 1), and both lotteries and guaranteed payments (k = 4), while 5 used the term "financial incentive" in observational survey studies without specifying the type of incentive (Taylor et al., 2020;Š iđanin et al., 2021;Ung et al., 2022;Shmueli, 2022;Shmueli, 2023). There were no clear patterns by incentive typefour studies of guaranteed incentives, all using experimental designs (Klüver et al., 2021;Campos-Mercade et al., 2021;Robertson et al., 2021b;Iyer et al., 2022), showed that they positively impacted vaccine intentions. Two studies of guaranteed incentives, both experimental designs, found that they had no impact on vaccine intentions (Sprengholz et al., 2021;Kreps et al., 2021), while four studies, including three experimental designs (Serra-Garcia and Szech, 2022;Carpio et al., 2021;Sprengholz et al., 2022) and one observation design (Wong et al., 2021), found mixed results. ...
... Seven studies of vaccine intention were conducted prior to widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines (i.e., prior to January 2021). Two found that incentives increased intentions (Robertson et al., 2021b;Iyer et al., 2022) while the remaining found null or mixed effects. ...
Financial incentives are a controversial strategy for increasing vaccination. In this systematic review, we evaluated: 1) the effects of incentives on COVID-19 vaccinations; 2) whether effects differed based on study outcome, study design, incentive type and timing, or sample sociodemographic characteristics; and 3) the cost of incentives per additional vaccine administered. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Econlit up to March 2022 for terms related to COVID, vaccines, and financial incentives, and identified 38 peer-reviewed, quantitative studies. Independent raters extracted study data and evaluated study quality. Studies examined the impact of financial incentives on COVID-19 vaccine uptake (k = 18), related psychological outcomes (e.g., vaccine intentions, k = 19), or both types of outcomes. For studies of vaccine uptake, none found that financial incentives had a negative effect on uptake, and most rigorous studies found that incentives had a positive effect on uptake. By contrast, studies of vaccine intentions were inconclusive. While three studies concluded that incentives may negatively impact vaccine intentions for some individuals, they had methodological limitations. Study outcomes (uptake versus intentions) and study design (experimental versus observational frameworks) appeared to influence results more than incentive type or timing. Additionally, income and political affiliation may moderate responses to incentives. Most studies evaluating cost per additional vaccine administered found that they ranged from $49-75. Overall, fears about financial incentives decreasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake are not supported by the evidence. Financial incentives likely increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. While these increases appear to be small, they may be meaningful across populations. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022316086 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022316086).
... The researchers concluded that reluctant citizens can usually be persuaded to seek vaccination with the help of financial incentives, and an incentive payment of US$1000 can increase vaccine uptake to as much as 86.9%. Those who refuse vaccination generally think the disease is not severe enough, do not have a great deal of trust in the public health system, and are older (Iyer et al., 2022). In Bangladesh in 2019, similar research showed high demand for a hypothetical vaccine to cure dengue fever, which also causes severe symptoms in infected individuals (Kabir et al., 2011). ...
This research aims to study the demand for
a COVID-19 vaccine. The main objective of this research was to investigate the willingness to pay (WTP)
of those people who are eligible for the government-financed vaccination programme under which this
medication is available free of charge. Based on this,
the study aimed to assess the optimum price that people are willing to pay for the vaccine. More than 300
undergraduate students were questioned in classroom
experiments about their personal preferences in order
to derive the demand curve for a hypothetical market for the COVID-19 vaccine. A regression analysis
of the results showed that the linear and power functions could describe consumer behaviour and predict
an optimal market price for the investigated item. In
addition, the linear model fitted better. Finally, we
compared our result with the real prices of the various
vaccines available on the market to see if the predicted
price was viable under the prevailing market conditions. The optimal price informs us how many people
will receive the next vaccine if it is offered at a specific
market price. It also informs us what price the government should assign to the vaccine to secure a particular target vaccination rate.
... Additionally, a randomized controlled trial by Campos-Mercade and colleagues (Campos-Mercade et al., 2021), which evaluated both vaccine uptake and intentions, found that incentives increased intentions by 3.9% from a baseline of 83.2%. Of the 11 randomized survey designs, 4 found that financial incentives significantly increased vaccine intentions (Klüver et al., 2021;Robertson et al., 2021b;Iyer et al., 2022), 2 found that incentives had no impact on vaccine intentions (Sprengholz et al., 2021;Kreps et al., 2021), and 5 had mixed results (Serra-Garcia and Szech, 2022;Carpio et al., 2021;Stamm et al., 2022;Sprengholz et al., 2022). One of the four studies with mixed results found that incentives ...
... Studies examined guaranteed payments (k = 10), lotteries (k = 1), and both lotteries and guaranteed payments (k = 4), while 5 used the term "financial incentive" in observational survey studies without specifying the type of incentive (Taylor et al., 2020;Š iđanin et al., 2021;Ung et al., 2022;Shmueli, 2022;Shmueli, 2023). There were no clear patterns by incentive typefour studies of guaranteed incentives, all using experimental designs (Klüver et al., 2021;Campos-Mercade et al., 2021;Robertson et al., 2021b;Iyer et al., 2022), showed that they positively impacted vaccine intentions. Two studies of guaranteed incentives, both experimental designs, found that they had no impact on vaccine intentions (Sprengholz et al., 2021;Kreps et al., 2021), while four studies, including three experimental designs (Serra-Garcia and Szech, 2022;Carpio et al., 2021;Sprengholz et al., 2022) and one observation design (Wong et al., 2021), found mixed results. ...
... Seven studies of vaccine intention were conducted prior to widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines (i.e., prior to January 2021). Two found that incentives increased intentions (Robertson et al., 2021b;Iyer et al., 2022) while the remaining found null or mixed effects. ...
Introduction: Financial incentives are a controversial strategy for increasing vaccination. In this systematic review, we evaluate: 1) whether incentives had a positive, negative, or neutral effect on COVID-19 vaccinations; 2) whether effects differed based on study design, incentive type and timing, or sample sociodemographic characteristics; and 3) the cost of incentives per additional vaccine administered. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Econlit up to March 2022 for terms related to COVID, vaccines, and financial incentives, and identified 31 peer-reviewed, quantitative studies. Studies examined the impact of financial incentives on COVID-19 vaccine uptake and related psychological outcomes (e.g., vaccine intentions). Independent raters extracted study data and evaluated study quality. Results: Studies examined vaccine uptake (k = 16), vaccine intentions (k = 14), or both (k = 1). No studies found that financial incentives had a negative effect on vaccine uptake. While three studies concluded that incentives may negatively impact vaccine intentions for some individuals, they had methodological limitations. Most rigorous studies found that incentives had a positive effect on vaccine uptake, while studies of vaccine intentions were inconclusive. Study outcomes and study design appeared to influence results more than incentive type or timing. Political affiliation and income may moderate responses to incentives. Studies evaluating cost per additional vaccine administered found they ranged from $49-75. Discussion: Fears about financial incentives decreasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake are not supported by the evidence. Financial incentives likely increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. While these increases appear to be small, they may be meaningful across populations.
... Thus, in modern societies, more than 25% of people in population appears to be opposed to vaccinations concerning various infectious diseases and different types of vaccines (Murphy et al., 2021). Iyer et al. (2022) maintain that hesitancy is a main barrier to vaccinations to cope with negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in society. These scholars find that reluctant people can be persuaded to be vaccinated with a monetary incentive of about $1,000, whereas for unwilling individuals there is not any amount of monetary incentive that can persuade them to be vaccinated. ...
... These scholars find that reluctant people can be persuaded to be vaccinated with a monetary incentive of about $1,000, whereas for unwilling individuals there is not any amount of monetary incentive that can persuade them to be vaccinated. Moreover, unwilling people do not trust of the public health system, government policies and tend to be individuals older than reluctant people (Iyer et al., 2022). Brown and Benson (2022) argue that vaccine hesitancy is one of the main health care challenges to cope with COVID-19, its variants and future infectious diseases. ...
In the presence of pandemic threats, such as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, vaccination is one of the fundamental strategies to cope with negative effects of new viral agents in society. The rollout of vast vaccination campaign also generates the main issue of hesitancy and resistance to vaccines in a share of people. Many studies have investigated how to reduce the social resistance to vaccinations, however the maximum level of vaccinable people against COVID-19, without coercion in countries, is unknown. The goal of this study is to solve the problem here by developing an empirical analysis, based on global data, to estimate the max share of people vaccinable in relation to socioeconomic wellbeing of nations. Results, based on 150 countries, reveal that vaccinations increase with the income per capita, achieving the maximum share of about 70% of total population, without coercion. This information can provide new knowledge to establish the appropriate goal of vaccination campaigns and in general of health policies to cope with next pandemic impacts without restrictions that create socioeconomic problems. Overall, then, nations have a natural level of max vaccinable people (70% of population), but strict containment policies to achieve 90% of vaccinated population can reduce the quality of democracy and generate socioeconomic issues higher than (pandemic) crisis.
Faced with the challenges of motivating people to vaccinate, many countries have introduced policy-level interventions to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. For example, mandates were widely imposed requiring individuals to vaccinate to work and attend school, and vaccination passports required individuals to show proof of vaccination to travel and access public spaces and events. Furthermore, some countries also began offering financial incentives for getting vaccinated. One major criticism of these policies was the possibility that they would produce reactance and thus undermine voluntary vaccination. This article therefore reviews relevant empirical evidence to examine whether this is indeed the case. Specifically, we devote separate sections to reviewing and discussing the impacts of three major policies that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: vaccination mandates, vaccination passports, and the provision of financial incentives. A careful analysis of the evidence provides little support that these policies backfire but instead can effectively promote vaccination at the population level. The policies are not without limitations, however, such as their inability to mobilize those that are strongly hesitant to vaccines. Finally, we discuss how policy-level interventions should be designed and implemented to address future epidemics and pandemics.
