Guaranteed Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: A Pilot Program in North Carolina.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wong CA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8546614 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Guaranteed Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: A Pilot Program in North Carolina.
Wong Charlene A CA Pilkington William W Doherty Irene A IA Zhu Ziliang Z Gawande Hattie H Kumar Deepak D Brewer Noel T NT
JAMA internal medicine 20220101 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportancePrior 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.InterventionControl 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 measurePrimary 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceThis 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 registrationISRCTN identifier: ISRCTN59503725.
| S-EPMC11806395 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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).
| S-EPMC10163939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In North Carolina, USA, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was associated with changing symptomology in daily surveys, including increasing rates of self-reported cough and sore throat and decreased rates of loss of taste and smell. Compared with the pre-Delta period, Delta and Omicron (pre-BA.4/BA.5) variant periods were associated with shorter symptom duration.
| S-EPMC9796200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionExperts continue to debate how to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Some experts advocate for financial incentives. Others argue that financial incentives, especially large ones, will have counterproductive psychological effects, reducing the percent of people who want to vaccinate. Among a racially and ethnically diverse U.S. sample of lower income adults, for whom vaccine uptake has lagged compared with higher income adults, we empirically examine such claims about relatively large and small guaranteed cash payments.MethodsIn 2021, we conducted a randomized, controlled experiment among U.S. residents with incomes below $80,000 who reported being unvaccinated against COVID-19. Study participants were randomized to one of four study arms. In two arms, respondents first learned about a policy proposal to pay $1,000 or $200 to those who received COVID-19 vaccination and were then asked if, given that policy, they would want to vaccinate. In the two other arms, respondents received either an educational message about this vaccine or received no vaccine information and were then asked if they wanted to vaccinate for COVID-19. The primary analyses estimated and compared the overall percentage in each study arm that reported wanting to vaccinate for COVID-19. In other analyses, we estimated and compared these percentages for subgroups of interest, including gender, race/ethnicity, and education.Main resultsAmong 2,290 unvaccinated adults, 79.7% (95%CI, 76.4-83.0%) of those who learned about the proposed $1,000 payment wanted to get vaccinated, compared with 58.9% (95%CI, 54.8-63.0%) in the control condition without vaccine information, a difference of 20 percentage points. Among those who learned of the proposed $200 payment, 74.8% (95% CI, 71.3-78.4%) wanted to vaccinate. Among those who learned only about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, 68.9% (95% CI, 65.1-72.7%) wanted to vaccinate. Findings were consistent across various subgroups.DiscussionDespite several study limitations, the results do not support concerns that the financial incentive policies aimed to increase COVID-19 vaccination would have counterproductive effects. Instead, those who learned about a policy with a large or small financial incentive were more likely than those in the control condition to report that they would want to vaccinate. The positive effects extended to subgroups that have been less likely to vaccinate, including younger adults, those with less education, and racial and ethnic minorities. Financial incentives of $1,000 performed similarly to those offering only $200.
| S-EPMC10022800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLatine populations in the United States continue to be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 with high rates of infection and mortality. Our community-based participatory research partnership examined factors associated with COVID-19 testing and vaccination within a particularly hidden, underserved, and vulnerable population: Spanish-speaking Latines.MethodsIn 2023, native Spanish-speaking Latine interviewers conducted phone-based structured individual assessments with 180 Spanish-speaking, predominantly immigrant Latines across North Carolina. We used univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine associations between participant characteristics and COVID-19 testing and vaccination.ResultsParticipant mean age was 41.7 (SD = 13), and 77.2% of the sample reported being cisgender women. Most participants reported immigrating from Latin American countries (89.9%), being uninsured (66.1%), and lacking US immigration documentation (51.1%). While most reported ever being COVID-19 tested (83.3%) and ever being vaccinated against COVID-19 (84.4%), only 24% were up to date with vaccination. Nearly half of the sample reported one or more barriers to COVID-19 testing, and over one-quarter reported one or more barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Higher educational attainment was significantly associated with ever being tested (P = .031). Fewer concerns about the vaccine, including fewer worries about side effects and having more confidence in vaccine effectiveness and safety, was associated with ever being vaccinated (P < .001).ConclusionsSpanish-speaking Latines face barriers to getting tested and vaccinated against COVID-19. Although ever testing and ever vaccination rates were high, being up to date with recommended vaccinations was low. Educational attainment and concerns about the vaccine were associated with COVID-19 testing and vaccination, respectively. Our findings suggest the need for culturally congruent strategies to address the challenges facing Spanish-speaking Latines in the United States.
| S-EPMC11756757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many low-income Americans experience food insecurity, which may have been exacerbated by economic instability during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In this study we assessed the impact of Healthy Helping, a short-term fruit and vegetable incentive program aimed at alleviating food insecurity and improving diet quality for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants, on grocery purchases, using transaction data from a large supermarket chain in North Carolina. We compared Healthy Helping participants' purchases of key food groups before and during the program with purchases by control shoppers participating in federal food assistance programs during the same period. Healthy Helping enrollment was associated with a $26.95 increase in monthly spending on fruit, vegetables, nuts, and legumes-an increase of 2.5 grams of fiber per 1,000 kilocalories purchased-and other shifts in the composition of food purchases, relative to control shoppers. These findings suggest that the program increased healthy food purchases while also increasing dollar sales at participating retailers. On average, participants did not use the full benefit; future research should explore factors associated with non- or underuse of benefits, to inform program design and outreach.
| S-EPMC10191414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent evidence suggests that vaccination hesitancy is too high in many countries to sustainably contain COVID-19. Using a factorial survey experiment administered to 20,500 online respondents in Germany, we assess the effectiveness of three strategies to increase vaccine uptake, namely, providing freedoms, financial remuneration, and vaccination at local doctors. Our results suggest that all three strategies can increase vaccination uptake on the order of two to three percentage points (PP) overall and five PP among the undecided. The combined effects could be as high as 13 PP for this group. The returns from different strategies vary across age groups, however, with older cohorts more responsive to local access and younger cohorts most responsive to enhanced freedoms for vaccinated citizens.
| S-EPMC8433545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many studies identified factors associated with vaccination intention and hesitancy, but factors associated with vaccination promptness and the effect of vaccination intention on vaccination promptness are unknown. This study identified factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination promptness and evaluated the role of vaccination intention on vaccination promptness in 1223 participants in a community-based longitudinal cohort study (June 2020 to December 2021). Participants answered questions regarding COVID-19 vaccination intention, vaccination status, and reasons for not receiving a vaccine. The association of baseline vaccine hesitancy with vaccination was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Follow-up analyses tested the importance of other variables predicting vaccination using the Cox proportional hazards model. Older age was associated with shorter time to vaccination (HR = 1.76 [1.37-2.25] 85-year-old versus 65-year-old). Lower education levels (HR = 0.80 [0.69-0.92]), household incomes (HR = 0.84 [0.72-0.98]), and baseline vaccination intention of 'No' (HR = 0.16 [0.11-0.23]) were associated with longer times to vaccination. The most common reasons for not being vaccinated (N = 58) were vaccine safety concerns (n = 33), side effects (n = 28), and vaccine effectiveness (n = 25). Vaccination campaigns that target populations prone to hesitancy and address vaccine safety and effectiveness could be helpful in future vaccination rollouts.
| S-EPMC10674190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, underserved communities including Blacks and Latinx are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. This study sought to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, describe attitudes related to vaccination, and identify correlates among historically marginalized populations across 9 counties in North Carolina.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey distributed at free COVID-19 testing events in underserved rural and urban communities from August 27 -December 15, 2020. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as the response of "no" or "don't know/not sure" to whether the participant would get the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it became available.ResultsThe sample comprised 948 participants including 27.7% Whites, 59.6% Blacks, 12.7% Latinx, and 63% female. 32% earned <$20K annually, 60% owned a computer and ~80% had internet access at home. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was 68.9% including 62.7%, 74%, and 59.5% among Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, respectively. Between September and December, the largest decline in vaccine hesitancy occurred among Whites (27.5 percentage points), followed by Latinx (17.6) and only 12.0 points among Blacks. 51.2% of respondents reported vaccine safety concerns, 23.7% wanted others to get vaccinated first, and 63.1% would trust health care providers about the COVID-19 vaccine. Factors associated with hesitancy in multivariable logistic regression included being female (OR = 1.90 95%CI [1.36, 2.64]), being Black (OR = 1.68 1.16, 2.45]), calendar month (OR = 0.76 [0.63, 0.92]), safety concerns (OR = 4.28 [3.06, 5.97]), and government distrust (OR = 3.57 [2.26, 5.63]).ConclusionsThis study engaged the community to directly reach underserved minority populations at highest risk of COVID-19 that permitted assessment of vaccine hesitancy (which was much higher than national estimates), driven in part by distrust, and safety concerns.
| S-EPMC8559933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, churches in the United States were forced to stop meeting in person and move to remote forms of worship and congregational life. This shift likely impacted congregational finances, which are primarily driven by individual donations. Initial research has suggested that there is a great deal of heterogeneity in the financial impact on congregations, but there has been scant research examining how pastors and congregations are managing finances during this period.PurposeThis research examines the impact of COVID-19 and its associated restrictions on congregational finances and the strategies pastors used to adapt their church's finances to the health restrictions.MethodsWe conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews with 50 pastors in the North Carolina and Western North Carolina Conferences of the United Methodist Church appointed to 70 congregations. Using applied thematic analysis, we analyzed transcripts at both the pastor and congregation-level to identify similarities and differences in financial impact, financial strategies, and pastor experiences during the pandemic.ResultsMost congregations reported small decreases in giving that were offset by federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and other grants from the denomination. Some congregations, mostly urban and fairly large, reported significant increases in giving, while several other, predominantly small congregations, reported their church's finances had been negatively impacted by the pandemic. Even in cases where the net impact of the pandemic was small or non-existent, pastors were forced to adopt a host of new strategies to manage finances. In general, small and large congregations experienced and responded to the financial impact of the pandemic very differently.and Implications.ConclusionsThis research suggests that the pandemic's impact on congregational finances were more than just on the bottom line. And while most churches weathered the economic challenges without severe impacts, questions remain as to the long-term impact of the pandemic on church finances.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13644-021-00474-x.
| S-EPMC8505220 | biostudies-literature