IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i6p774-784.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attractive Flu Shot: A Behavioral Approach to Increasing Influenza Vaccination Uptake Rates

Author

Listed:
  • Amnon Maltz

    (University of Haifa, Haifa, IL, Israel)

  • Adi Sarid

    (Tel Aviv University and Sarid Research Services, Tel Aviv, IL, Israel)

Abstract

Background. We suggest and examine a behavioral approach to increasing seasonal influenza vaccine uptake. Our idea combines behavioral effects generated by a dominated option, together with more traditional tools, such as providing information and recommendations. Methods. Making use of the seasonal nature of the flu, our treatments present participants with 2 options to receive the shot: early in the season, which is recommended and hence “attractive,†or later. Three additional layers are examined: 1) mentioning that the vaccine is more likely to run out of stock late in the season, 2) the early shot is free while the late one costs a fee, and 3) the early shot carries a monetary benefit. We compare vaccination intentions in these treatments to those of a control group who were invited to receive the shot regardless of timing. Results. Using a sample of the Israeli adult population ( n = 3271), we found positive effects of all treatments on vaccination intentions, and these effects were significant for 3 of the 4 treatments. In addition, the vast majority of those who are willing to vaccinate intend to get the early shot. Conclusions. Introducing 2 options to get vaccinated against influenza (early or late) positively affects intentions to receive the flu shot. In addition, this approach nudges participants to take the shot in early winter, a timing that has been shown to be more cost-effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Amnon Maltz & Adi Sarid, 2020. "Attractive Flu Shot: A Behavioral Approach to Increasing Influenza Vaccination Uptake Rates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 774-784, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:6:p:774-784
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20944190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20944190
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20944190?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bronchetti, Erin Todd & Huffman, David B. & Magenheim, Ellen, 2015. "Attention, intentions, and follow-through in preventive health behavior: Field experimental evidence on flu vaccination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 270-291.
    2. Shosh Shahrabani & Uri Benzion & Gregory Yom Din, 2009. "Factors affecting nurses’ decision to get the flu vaccine," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(2), pages 227-231, May.
    3. Stephen T. Parente & David S. Salkever & Joan DaVanzo, 2005. "The role of consumer knowledge of insurance benefits in the demand for preventive health care among the elderly," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 25-38, January.
    4. Robert Böhm & Nicolas W. Meier & Lars Korn & Cornelia Betsch, 2017. "Behavioural consequences of vaccination recommendations: An experimental analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 66-75, December.
    5. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hans J. Czap & Natalia V. Czap, 2022. "Behaviorally-informed framework for encouraging COVID-19 vaccinations," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(1), pages 21-26, December.
    2. Caserotti, Marta & Girardi, Paolo & Rubaltelli, Enrico & Tasso, Alessandra & Lotto, Lorella & Gavaruzzi, Teresa, 2021. "Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    3. Miguel Costa-Gomes & Georgios Gerasimou, 2020. "Status Quo Bias and the Decoy Effect: A Comparative Analysis in Choice under Risk," Papers 2006.14868, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brilli, Ylenia & Lucifora, Claudio & Russo, Antonio & Tonello, Marco, 2020. "Vaccination take-up and health: Evidence from a flu vaccination program for the elderly," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 323-341.
    2. Daisy Lee & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Tai Ming Wut & Gabriel Li, 2022. "Increasing Seasonal Influenza Vaccination among University Students: A Systematic Review of Programs Using a Social Marketing Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Chaudhuri, K & Howley, P., 2021. "The impact of Covid-19 vaccination for mental health," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 21/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    5. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovic, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Reciprocal Responses to Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-03, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2016.
    6. Heather P. Lacey & Steven C. Lacey & Prerna Dayal & Caroline Forest & Dana Blasi, 2023. "Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 417-429, May.
    7. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2020. "Economic preferences and compliance in the social stress test of the Corona crisis," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 391, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.
    10. Vincenzo Carrieri & Ansgar Wuebker, 2014. "Does the Letter Matter (and for Everyone)? - Quasi-experimental Evidence on the Eff ects of Home Invitation on Mammography Uptake," Ruhr Economic Papers 0491, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Goldzahl, Léontine & Hollard, Guillaume & Jusot, Florence, 2018. "Increasing breast-cancer screening uptake: A randomized controlled experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 228-252.
    12. Erin T. Bronchetti & Judd B. Kessler & Ellen B. Magenheim & Dmitry Taubinsky & Eric Zwick, 2020. "Is Attention Produced Rationally?," Working Papers 2020-91, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    13. Manja Gärtner & Anna Sandberg, 2017. "Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Nagpal, Anish & Lei, Jing & Khare, Adwait, 2015. "To Choose or to Reject: The Effect of Decision Frame on Food Customization Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 422-435.
    15. Davood Bayat & Hadi Mohamadpour & Huihua Fang & Pengfei Xu & Frank Krueger, 2023. "The Impact of Order Effects on the Framing of Trust and Reciprocity Behaviors," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
    16. Julia Witt, 2008. "The effect of information in the utilization of preventive health‐care strategies: An application to breast cancer," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 721-731, June.
    17. Reiter, Paul L. & Brewer, Noel T. & Gottlieb, Sami L. & McRee, Annie-Laurie & Smith, Jennifer S., 2009. "Parents' health beliefs and HPV vaccination of their adolescent daughters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 475-480, August.
    18. Jürgen Maurer & Katherine M. Harris, 2016. "Learning to Trust Flu Shots: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from the 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(9), pages 1148-1162, September.
    19. Ahmad Barirani & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2017. "The Origins and Extent of Entrepreneurial Action-Orientedness: An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-006/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:7:p:593-601 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Meier Stephan, 2005. "Does Framing Matter for Conditional Cooperation? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-21, December.
    22. Christopher Shallow & Rumen Iliev & Douglas Medin, 2011. "Trolley problems in context," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 593-601, October.

    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:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:6:p:774-784. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.