Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 9.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL JAMA Network Open Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58542
John Ternovski, Sebastian Jilke, Florian Keppeler, Dominik Vogel
{"title":"Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"John Ternovski, Sebastian Jilke, Florian Keppeler, Dominik Vogel","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Prior studies found that financial incentives have small, positive direct effects in increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates, but unmeasured social spillovers (ie, changes in outcomes among untreated individuals who are socially exposed to policy beneficiaries) may diminish the overall effect of such policies.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the spillover effects of a COVID-19 vaccination financial incentive and assess whether incorporating estimates of spillover meaningfully affects broader evaluations of policy effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This population-level, address-cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in November 2021. Participants were all adult (aged ≥18 years) residents of Ravensburg, Germany, who were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. One resident in each address cluster was randomly selected to be an address-cluster representative. Address-cluster representatives in the treatment group received the treatment letter; all other cohabitants at that same address received the control letter. All individuals in addresses randomly assigned to the control group were mailed a control letter. Intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted from January 2022 to May 2024.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Control letters informed recipients about 7 upcoming free COVID-19 vaccination events. Treatment letters were identical to control letters, except they also offered €40 (US $41.46) for getting vaccinated at one of the events.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measure: </strong>Primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination uptake was observed and recorded on site during the public vaccination events. Primary vaccinations were defined as either the first dose of a 1-dose vaccine or the first or second dose of a 2-doses vaccine. Boosters were defined as any dose after primary vaccination. Three types of commonly used treatment effects were analyzed: direct, spillover, and overall.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 41 548 Ravensburg residents (mean [SD] age, 49.96 [19.04] years; 51.3% female), 796 (1.9%) were vaccinated at 1 of the 7 public vaccination events. The direct, spillover, and overall effects of receiving a financial incentive on primary vaccinations were all nonsignificant. For booster vaccinations, the direct effect was negative but not statistically significant (-0.32 percentage points [95% CI, -0.77 to 0.14 percentage points]; P = .17), whereas the overall effect (-0.30 percentage points [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.09 percentage points]; P = .006) was significantly negative. The spillover effect was significantly negative (-0.29 percentage points [95% CI, -0.53 to -0.06 percentage points]; P = .01), but only for the first vaccination events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This trial found null direct effects on COVID-19 vaccination uptake and negative effects on booster uptake among individuals who did not receive but were indirectly exposed to the financial incentives. The timing of this spillover suggests that cohabitants of financial incentive recipients postponed booster vaccination, thereby undermining the potential effectiveness of this policy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN identifier: ISRCTN59503725.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 2","pages":"e2458542"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11806395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58542","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Prior studies found that financial incentives have small, positive direct effects in increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates, but unmeasured social spillovers (ie, changes in outcomes among untreated individuals who are socially exposed to policy beneficiaries) may diminish the overall effect of such policies.

Objective: To assess the spillover effects of a COVID-19 vaccination financial incentive and assess whether incorporating estimates of spillover meaningfully affects broader evaluations of policy effectiveness.

Design, setting, and participants: This population-level, address-cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in November 2021. Participants were all adult (aged ≥18 years) residents of Ravensburg, Germany, who were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. One resident in each address cluster was randomly selected to be an address-cluster representative. Address-cluster representatives in the treatment group received the treatment letter; all other cohabitants at that same address received the control letter. All individuals in addresses randomly assigned to the control group were mailed a control letter. Intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted from January 2022 to May 2024.

Intervention: Control letters informed recipients about 7 upcoming free COVID-19 vaccination events. Treatment letters were identical to control letters, except they also offered €40 (US $41.46) for getting vaccinated at one of the events.

Main outcome and measure: Primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination uptake was observed and recorded on site during the public vaccination events. Primary vaccinations were defined as either the first dose of a 1-dose vaccine or the first or second dose of a 2-doses vaccine. Boosters were defined as any dose after primary vaccination. Three types of commonly used treatment effects were analyzed: direct, spillover, and overall.

Results: Among 41 548 Ravensburg residents (mean [SD] age, 49.96 [19.04] years; 51.3% female), 796 (1.9%) were vaccinated at 1 of the 7 public vaccination events. The direct, spillover, and overall effects of receiving a financial incentive on primary vaccinations were all nonsignificant. For booster vaccinations, the direct effect was negative but not statistically significant (-0.32 percentage points [95% CI, -0.77 to 0.14 percentage points]; P = .17), whereas the overall effect (-0.30 percentage points [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.09 percentage points]; P = .006) was significantly negative. The spillover effect was significantly negative (-0.29 percentage points [95% CI, -0.53 to -0.06 percentage points]; P = .01), but only for the first vaccination events.

Conclusions and relevance: This trial found null direct effects on COVID-19 vaccination uptake and negative effects on booster uptake among individuals who did not receive but were indirectly exposed to the financial incentives. The timing of this spillover suggests that cohabitants of financial incentive recipients postponed booster vaccination, thereby undermining the potential effectiveness of this policy.

Trial registration: ISRCTN identifier: ISRCTN59503725.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
COVID-19疫苗接种的财政激励:一项集群随机临床试验
重要性:先前的研究发现,财政激励对提高COVID-19疫苗接种率具有微小的积极直接影响,但无法衡量的社会溢出效应(即在社会上与政策受益者接触的未经治疗的个人的结果变化)可能会削弱此类政策的总体效果。目的:评估COVID-19疫苗接种财政激励的溢出效应,并评估纳入溢出效应估计是否会对更广泛的政策有效性评估产生有意义的影响。设计、环境和参与者:该人群水平、地址群随机临床试验于2021年11月进行。参与者均为德国Ravensburg的成年居民(年龄≥18岁),随机分为治疗组和对照组。在每个地址组中随机抽取一名居民作为地址组代表。治疗组地址群代表收到治疗信;同一地址的所有其他同居者都收到了控制信。所有地址随机分配到对照组的人都收到了一封对照信。意向治疗数据分析于2022年1月至2024年5月进行。干预措施:控制信告知收件人即将举行的7次免费COVID-19疫苗接种活动。治疗信与对照信相同,除了它们还提供了40欧元(41.46美元),用于在其中一个活动中接种疫苗。主要结局和措施:在公共疫苗接种活动期间,现场观察并记录初次和加强的COVID-19疫苗接种情况。初次接种的定义是1剂疫苗的第一剂或2剂疫苗的第一剂或第二剂。加强剂被定义为初次接种后的任何剂量。分析了三种常用的治理效果:直接、溢出和整体。结果:41 548名Ravensburg居民(平均[SD]年龄49.96[19.04]岁;在7次公共疫苗接种活动中的1次接种了796例(1.9%)。接受财政激励对初次接种的直接、溢出和总体影响都不显著。对于加强疫苗接种,直接影响为负,但没有统计学意义(-0.32个百分点[95% CI, -0.77至0.14个百分点];P = .17),而总体效果(-0.30个百分点[95% CI, -0.51至-0.09个百分点];P = 0.006)呈显著负相关。溢出效应显著为负(-0.29个百分点[95% CI, -0.53至-0.06个百分点];P = .01),但仅针对第一次接种事件。结论和相关性:本试验发现,在未接种但间接暴露于经济激励的个体中,对COVID-19疫苗接种的直接影响为零,对加强接种的负面影响为负。这种溢出的时机表明,财政激励接受者的同住者推迟了加强疫苗接种,从而破坏了该政策的潜在有效性。试验注册:ISRCTN标识符:ISRCTN59503725。
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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
期刊最新文献
Generative Artificial Intelligence Applications Use Among US Youth. Extraintestinal Invasive Escherichia coli Infections in the US. Costs of Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy vs Traditional Therapy for Asthma. Maternal Health Workforce Expansion and Local Childbirths. Serous Ovarian Cancer Following Opportunistic Bilateral Salpingectomy.
×
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