IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0318704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gains vs losses in pay-for-performance: Stated preference evidence from a U.S. survey

Author

Listed:
  • Justin G Trogdon
  • Aveena Khanderia
  • Kathryn Brignole
  • Jodi A Lewis
  • Tara Licciardello Queen

Abstract

Background: Pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives can be paid as a bonus (gain) or a penalty (loss). Diminishing marginal utility of wealth suggests that, starting from the same initial wealth, individuals dislike losses more than they like equivalent gains. Objective: This study reports the minimum financial gain or loss required to motivate primary care providers and clinical staff to try to increase their human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates. Data: In 2022, we conducted a national U.S. survey through WebMD’s Medscape Network of clinical staff working in primary care clinics that provided HPV vaccination to children ages 9 through 12 years (N = 2,527; response rate = 57%). Methods: We randomized respondents to one of two hypothetical HPV vaccine incentive designs: a bonus for reaching an unspecified target HPV vaccination rate and a penalty for failing to reach the unspecified target. The primary outcome is the self-reported smallest incentive amount (U.S. dollars) that would motivate participants to try and increase their HPV vaccination rates. We tested for differences across P4P designs using unadjusted responses and linear regressions adjusting for clinic and respondent characteristics. We also tested for heterogeneous responses by experience with incentizves, training, and rurality. Results: The mean amount required to motivate effort was $2,155 in the gain P4P design and $1,185 in the loss P4P design (unadjusted difference = $970 [p

Suggested Citation

  • Justin G Trogdon & Aveena Khanderia & Kathryn Brignole & Jodi A Lewis & Tara Licciardello Queen, 2025. "Gains vs losses in pay-for-performance: Stated preference evidence from a U.S. survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-10, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0318704
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318704
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318704&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0318704?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0318704. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.