IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v13y2023i1d10.1186_s13561-023-00417-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentivizing COVID-19 vaccination among racial/ethnic minority adults in the United States: $209 per dose could convince the hesitant

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Chen

    (Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University)

  • Marta Wilson-Barthes

    (Brown University School of Public Health)

  • Jeffrey E. Harris

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Omar Galárraga

    (Brown University School of Public Health)

Abstract

Background More than two years into the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, it remains unclear whether financial incentives can reduce vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake among key unvaccinated populations. This study estimated the willingness of racial/ethnic minority adults in the United States to accept financial incentives for COVID-19 vaccination and the minimum amount needed to vaccinate a sufficiently high percentage of this population. Methods From August through September 2021, we conducted an online survey of 367 Black/African American and Hispanic patients, age ≥ 18 years, from 8 community health centers in Rhode Island. Contingent valuation questions assessed respondents’ willingness-to-accept (WTA) incentives for COVID-19 vaccination using random-starting-points and iterative incentive offers of $5 to $50 per dose. Ordered logistic regression models examined associations between respondent characteristics and WTA. Predictive probabilities were modeled using both within-survey range and out-of-survey range incentive offer amounts and compared against vaccination thresholds needed to reach herd immunity. Results Less than 30% of unvaccinated survey respondents were WTA an incentive of $50/dose for vaccination. Models using out-of-survey incentive offer amounts greater than $50 suggested that 85% of respondents would agree $140/dose (95% CI: $43-$236) could convince other people to accept vaccination, while $209/dose (95% CI: -$91-$509) would be needed for 85% of respondents to accept vaccination themselves. Conclusions Findings from this analysis may inform the design of incentive schemes aiming to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in vaccine and booster uptake, which will continue to be important as new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerge.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Chen & Marta Wilson-Barthes & Jeffrey E. Harris & Omar Galárraga, 2023. "Incentivizing COVID-19 vaccination among racial/ethnic minority adults in the United States: $209 per dose could convince the hesitant," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:13:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-023-00417-y
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-023-00417-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-023-00417-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-023-00417-y?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. Jacob Wallace & Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham & Jason Schwartz, 2022. "Excess death rates for Republicans and Democrats during the COVID-19 pandemic," Papers 2209.10751, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    2. Daniel McFadden & Albert Bemmaor & Francis Caro & Jeff Dominitz & Byung-Hill Jun & Arthur Lewbel & Rosa Matzkin & Francesca Molinari & Norbert Schwarz & Robert Willis & Joachim Winter, 2005. "Statistical Analysis of Choice Experiments and Surveys," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 183-196, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    2. de Nicola, Francesca & Giné, Xavier, 2014. "How accurate are recall data? Evidence from coastal India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 52-65.
    3. Lima, Everton E. C. Dr., 2022. "Municipal Brazilian electoral results in 2018-2022 and its association with excess mortality during 2020-2021 COVID-19 pandemic," OSF Preprints pyjbk, Center for Open Science.
    4. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    5. de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Montizaan, Raymond, 2020. "Redistribution of individual pension wealth to survivor pensions: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 402-421.
    6. A. Ludwig & A. Zimper, 2013. "A parsimonious model of subjective life expectancy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 519-541, October.
    7. Donatella Baiardi & Riccardo Puglisi & Simona Scabrosetti, 2012. "Individual Attitudes on Food Quality and Safety: Empirical Evidence on EU Countries," DEM Working Papers Series 014, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    9. Clemens, Jeffrey & Hoxie, Philip & Kearns, John & Veuger, Stan, 2023. "How did federal aid to states and localities affect testing and vaccine delivery?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    10. Thomas F. Crossley & Joachim K. Winter, 2014. "Asking Households about Expenditures: What Have We Learned?," NBER Chapters, in: Improving the Measurement of Consumer Expenditures, pages 23-50, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Thøgersen, John, 2018. "Transport-related lifestyle and environmentally-friendly travel mode choices: A multi-level approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 166-186.
    12. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    13. Petri Böckerman & Pekka Ilmakunnas, 2009. "Unemployment and self‐assessed health: evidence from panel data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 161-179, February.
    14. Persichina, Marco & Kriström, Bengt, 2022. "Self-selected intervals in psycho-physic experiments and the measurement of willingness to pay," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    15. Andersson, Alfred & Winslott Hiselius, Lena & Adell, Emeli, 2020. "The effect of marketing messages on the motivation to reduce private car use in different segments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 22-30.
    16. Poulissen, Davey & de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Künn, Annemarie, 2021. "Employers’ willingness to invest in the training of temporary workers: a discrete choice experiment," ROA Research Memorandum 003, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    17. Licht, Amir N. & Adams, Renee B., 2020. "Shareholders and Stakeholders around the World: The Role of Values, Culture, and Law in Directors' Decisions," LawFin Working Paper Series 13, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    18. Tra Thi Trinh & Alistair Munro, 2022. "Climate change and migration decisions: A choice experiment from the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," GRIPS Discussion Papers 22-07, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    19. Borghans, Lex & Romans, Margo & Sauermann, Jan, 2010. "What makes a good conference? Analysing the preferences of labour economists," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 868-874, October.
    20. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2021. "Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 371-404, May.

    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:spr:hecrev:v:13:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-023-00417-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.