Dataset Information

Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences.

ABSTRACT: Financial incentives to encourage healthy and prosocial behaviours often trigger initial behavioural change^1-11, but a large academic literature warns against using them^12-16. Critics warn that financial incentives can crowd out prosocial motivations and reduce perceived safety and trust, thereby reducing healthy behaviours when no payments are offered and eroding morals more generally^17-24. Here we report findings from a large-scale, pre-registered study in Sweden that causally measures the unintended consequences of offering financial incentives for taking the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We use a unique combination of random exposure to financial incentives, population-wide administrative vaccination records and rich survey data. We find no negative consequences of financial incentives; we can reject even small negative impacts of offering financial incentives on future vaccination uptake, morals, trust and perceived safety. In a complementary study, we find that informing US residents about the existence of state incentive programmes also has no negative consequences. Our findings inform not only the academic debate on financial incentives for behaviour change but also policy-makers who consider using financial incentives to change behaviour.

SUBMITTER: Schneider FH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9833033 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences.

Schneider Florian H FH Campos-Mercade Pol P Meier Stephan S Pope Devin D Wengström Erik E Meier Armando N AN

Nature 20230111 7944

Financial incentives to encourage healthy and prosocial behaviours often trigger initial behavioural change1-11, but a large academic literature warns against using them12-16. Critics warn that financial incentives can crowd out prosocial motivations and reduce perceived safety and trust, thereby reducing healthy behaviours when no payments are offered and eroding morals more generally17-24. Here we report findings from a large-scale, pre-registered study in Swed ...[more]

PMID: 36631607

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiven the increase in financial-incentive programs nationwide, many physicians and physician groups are concerned about potential unintended consequences of providing financial incentives to improve quality of care. However, few studies examine whether actual unintended consequences result from providing financial incentives to physicians. We sought to document the extent to which the unintended consequences discussed in the literature were observable in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of financial incentives.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative observational study nested within a larger RCT of financial incentives to improve hypertension care. We conducted 30-minute telephone interviews with primary care personnel at facilities participating in the RCT housed at12 geographically dispersed Veterans Affairs Medical Centers nationwide. Participants answered questions about unintended effects, clinic team dynamics, organizational impact on care delivery, study participation. We employed a blend of inductive and deductive qualitative techniques for analysis.ParticipantsSixty-five participants were recruited from RCT enrollees and personnel not enrolled in the larger RCT, plus one primary care leader per site.ResultsEmergent themes included possible patient harm, emphasis on documentation over improving care, reduced professional morale, and positive spillover. All discussions of unintended consequences involving patient harm were only concerns, not actual events. Several unintended consequences concerned ancillary initiatives for quality improvement (e.g., practice guidelines and performance measurement systems) rather than financial incentives.ConclusionsMany unintended consequences of financial incentives noted were either only concerns or attributable to ancillary quality-improvement initiatives. Actual unintended consequences included improved documentation of care without necessarily improving actual care, and positive unintended consequences.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00302718.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences.

Publications

Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets