Do some prefer to pay? Identifying bias against free COVID-19 tests

IF 1.9 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Public Health in Practice Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100483
Yeonsoo Baik , Cedric H. Bien-Gund , Gregory P. Bisson , Robert Gross , Jessica Fishman
{"title":"Do some prefer to pay? Identifying bias against free COVID-19 tests","authors":"Yeonsoo Baik ,&nbsp;Cedric H. Bien-Gund ,&nbsp;Gregory P. Bisson ,&nbsp;Robert Gross ,&nbsp;Jessica Fishman","doi":"10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>In the United States, a federal emergency program has made SARS-CoV-2 self-test kits available at no cost. It is unclear how widely free tests are preferred. We conducted a survey to estimate the proportion of respondents who do not prefer a free test. We hypothesized that free tests would not be preferred universally, and that a preference for paying would be more common among those with conservative politics than with liberal politics, regardless of income.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Observational study design.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A national sample of US adults completed an online survey. To reduce potential enrollment bias, the survey’s focus was not specified beforehand. To prioritize a high-risk group, participation was limited to those who were unvaccinated or were incompletely vaccinated in the primary series against COVID-19. Participants reported their testing preferences and socio-demographic characteristics, including political affiliation. The main outcome assessed if a participant preferred to pay for a self-test or receive a free one (subsidized by the US government).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among 1215 participants, (73%, n = 886) preferred free self-testing, while 27% (n = 329) preferred to pay for the same testing. After adjusting for income, the odds of preferring to pay for self-testing were 66% higher in “strong” Republicans compared to “strong” Democrats (odds ratio = 1.66, 95% confidence interval = 1.07–2.62).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>More than a quarter of individuals preferred paying for these tests. This preference was more likely among those with right-wing politics. Policy implications are discussed, along with future research directions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34141,"journal":{"name":"Public Health in Practice","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100483"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266653522400020X/pdfft?md5=7ac9909a7bc5e599c6f2412ace47c16e&pid=1-s2.0-S266653522400020X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266653522400020X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

In the United States, a federal emergency program has made SARS-CoV-2 self-test kits available at no cost. It is unclear how widely free tests are preferred. We conducted a survey to estimate the proportion of respondents who do not prefer a free test. We hypothesized that free tests would not be preferred universally, and that a preference for paying would be more common among those with conservative politics than with liberal politics, regardless of income.

Design

Observational study design.

Methods

A national sample of US adults completed an online survey. To reduce potential enrollment bias, the survey’s focus was not specified beforehand. To prioritize a high-risk group, participation was limited to those who were unvaccinated or were incompletely vaccinated in the primary series against COVID-19. Participants reported their testing preferences and socio-demographic characteristics, including political affiliation. The main outcome assessed if a participant preferred to pay for a self-test or receive a free one (subsidized by the US government).

Results

Among 1215 participants, (73%, n = 886) preferred free self-testing, while 27% (n = 329) preferred to pay for the same testing. After adjusting for income, the odds of preferring to pay for self-testing were 66% higher in “strong” Republicans compared to “strong” Democrats (odds ratio = 1.66, 95% confidence interval = 1.07–2.62).

Conclusions

More than a quarter of individuals preferred paying for these tests. This preference was more likely among those with right-wing politics. Policy implications are discussed, along with future research directions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有些人喜欢付费吗?识别对免费 COVID-19 检测的偏见
目标在美国,一项联邦紧急计划免费提供 SARS-CoV-2 自我检测试剂盒。目前尚不清楚免费检测在多大范围内受到青睐。我们进行了一项调查,以估计不喜欢免费检测的受访者比例。我们假设,并非所有人都喜欢免费检测,而且无论收入如何,保守派比自由派更倾向于付费检测。为了减少潜在的登记偏差,调查的重点事先没有明确规定。为优先考虑高风险人群,调查对象仅限于未接种或未完全接种 COVID-19 疫苗的人群。参与者报告了他们的检测偏好和社会人口特征,包括政治派别。主要结果是评估参与者是愿意付费进行自我检测还是接受免费检测(由美国政府补贴)。结果在 1215 名参与者中,73%(n = 886)的人愿意接受免费自我检测,27%(n = 329)的人愿意付费进行同样的检测。在对收入进行调整后,与 "坚定的 "民主党人相比,"坚定的 "共和党人倾向于付费进行自我检测的几率要高出 66%(几率比 = 1.66,95% 置信区间 = 1.07-2.62)。超过四分之一的人倾向于付费进行这些测试,而右翼政治倾向者更倾向于付费。本文讨论了政策影响以及未来的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health in Practice
Public Health in Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
117
审稿时长
71 days
期刊最新文献
Short and disrupted sleep is related to perceptions of neighborhood in pregnant African American women of low socioeconomic status Utilising unsupervised machine learning to predict outbreaks of respiratory tract infections in acute Irish hospitals (2016-2021) A propensity score-matched study including 250,000 patients with Factor V Leiden shows significantly increased mortality in comparison with individuals without thrombophilia How can integrated neighbourhood teams (INTs) tackle health and care inequalities? A policy evidence brief Mobilizing community assets to address health equity: Evaluation of the Communities Organizing to Promote Equity (COPE) project in Kansas
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1