Cash versus Lotteries: COVID-19 Vaccine Incentives Experiment*

Duch, Raymond M.; Barnett, Adrian; Filipek, Maciej; Roope, Laurence; Violato, Mara; Clarke, Philip

doi:10.1101/2021.07.26.21250865

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An online RCT found that a news story communicating the personal health risks of not getting vaccinated, and another communicating the collective public health consequences of not getting vaccinated, increased vaccination intention [ 18 ]. Another online RCT (pre-print), measuring a digital expression of interest, found that after watching a video promoting the health benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine, 16% of unvaccinated participants wanted more information [ 19 ]. This proportion of participants was similar to those who watched a video including the promotion of cash lotteries, although less effective than a video promoting states using cash vouchers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An online experiment (pre-print) found that adding educational videos to reminders to schedule COVID-19 vaccines increased the effectiveness of a reminder and led to an increase in participants reported likelihood of scheduling an appointment [ 16 ]. An online RCT (pre-print) found that 22% of unvaccinated respondents expressed wanting further information on the vaccine after watching a video containing information on the health benefits of the vaccine and a cash voucher incentive for vaccination, compared to 14–16% for a video with lottery incentives or a standard information video without an incentive, respectively [ 19 ]. An online RCT (pre-print) found that only a male-narrated video providing details about the COVID-19 vaccine and emphasising the altruistic motivations associated with vaccination increased intention [ 42 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While cash amounts could increase vaccination intentions, the evidence suggests that lotteries are less effective. An online RCT (pre-print) found no difference in expression of further interest in vaccination information between control and lottery conditions, but found that cash vouchers did increase the number of interested individuals [ 19 ]. Another online RCT (pre-print) compared 12 conditions varying the distribution of $5million and found that vaccination intention did not differ across conditions; indeed intentions post-incentive were strongly associated with baseline willingness [ 36 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effectiveness of Interventions for Increasing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Systematic Review

Batteux

Mills²,

Jones³

et al. 2022

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccination is vital to protect the public against COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We searched a range of databases (Embase, Medline, Psychology & Behavioral Science, PsycInfo, Web of Science and NIH Preprints Portfolio) from March 2020 to July 2021 for studies which reported primary quantitative or qualitative research on interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Outcome measures included vaccination uptake and reported intention to vaccinate. Reviews, position papers, conference abstracts, protocol papers and papers not in English were excluded. The NHLBI quality assessment was used to assess risk of bias. In total, 39 studies across 33 papers met the inclusion criteria. A total of 28 were assessed as good quality. They included interventions relating to communication content, communication delivery, communication presentation, policy or vaccination delivery, with 7 measuring vaccination uptake and 32 measuring vaccination intention. A narrative synthesis was conducted, which highlighted that there is reasonable evidence from studies investigating real behaviour suggesting that personalising communications and sending booking reminders via text message increases vaccine uptake. Findings on vaccination intention are mixed but suggest that communicating uncertainty about the vaccine does not decrease intention, whereas making vaccination mandatory could have a negative impact. Although much of the research used experimental designs, very few measured real behavioural outcomes. Understanding which interventions are most effective amongst vaccine-hesitant populations and in the context of booster vaccinations will be important as vaccine roll outs continue across the world.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effectiveness of Interventions for Increasing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Systematic Review

Batteux

Mills²,

Jones³

et al. 2022

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that video messages had a more negligible effect on the vaccination rate than text messages ( 25 ). On the other hand, messages regarding cash vouchers raised people's willingness to get information about vaccination; however, it is unclear how much this intervention will actually lead to getting vaccinated ( 27 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of incentives on COVID-19 vaccination; A systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAlthough vaccination is the most effective way to limit and overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, a considerable fraction of them are not intended to get vaccinated. This study aims to investigate the existing research evidence and evaluate the effectiveness and consequences of all incentives provided for increasing the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsA systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and SCOPUS from 2020 until October 10, 2021, was conducted on experimental studies evaluating the effects of incentives including cash, lottery voucher, and persuasive messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention and uptake. The study selection process, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two investigators using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010) checklist.ResultsTwenty-four records were included in the qualitative analysis. Most of the included studies assessed the effect of financial incentives. In 14 studies (58%) the assessed outcome was vaccination uptake and in nine (37.5%) others it was vaccination intention. One study considered self-reported vaccination status as the outcome. This study shows that high financial incentives and the Vax-a-million lottery are attributed to a higher vaccination rate, while the low amount of financial incentives, other lotteries, and persuasive messages have small or non-significant effects.ConclusionPaying a considerable amount of cash and Vax-a-million lottery are attributed to a higher vaccination. Nevertheless, there is a controversy over the effect of other incentives including other lotteries, low amount of cash, and messages on vaccination. It is noteworthy that, inconsistency and imprecision of included studies should be considered.

show abstract

“…Previously, financial incentives have been found to increase vaccine uptake in several countries (e.g., the U.S., Kenya, Australia) targeting a variety of infections including Human Papillomavirus, Measles, Polio, and Hepatitis B ( Caskey et al, 2017 , Gibson et al, 2019 , Kagucia et al, 2021 , Mantzari et al, 2015 ). Studies in the U.S., Germany, and Sweden found that hypothetical incentives increased COVID-19 vaccination intentions ( Carpio et al, 2021 , Duch et al, 2021 , Klüver et al, 2021 , Sprengholz et al, 2021 ). Each of these studies was structured differently, with the largest range offered being 0 to 10,000 Euros.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%