Dataset Information

A qualitative exploration of using financial incentives to improve vaccination uptake via consent form return in female adolescents in London.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Incentivising vaccine consent form return may improve vaccine uptake and be seen as less coercive than incentivising vaccination itself. We assessed the acceptability of financial incentives in this context among adolescent females and explored potential mechanisms by which incentives might change behaviour. DESIGN:Focus groups and analysis of free-text questionnaire responses. METHODS:Study 1: 36 female secondary students in London (age 13-14) participated in six focus groups exploring the use of incentives in the context of vaccination. Data were analysed thematically. Study 2: was conducted to triangulate the findings of Study 1, by analysing free-text questionnaire responses from 181 female secondary students in London (age 12-13) reporting their opinion of incentivising consent form return. Data from Study 1 was also used to explore perceived potential mechanisms of action by which incentives might encourage consent form return. RESULTS:Focus group participants had positive attitudes towards incentives, with 61% of free-text responses also expressing this. Most focus group participants thought that incentives would encourage consent form return (18% of free-text respondents spontaneously also mentioned this). While incentivising consent form return was seen as ethical, focus group participants who incorrectly thought that vaccine receipt was being incentivised raised concerns about bribery, although only 4% of free text respondents reported these concerns. Frequently raised mechanisms of action included incentives increasing engagement with, and the perceived value of consent form return. CONCLUSIONS:Adolescents had positive views of financially incentivising consent form return to promote vaccine uptake, although care must be taken to reduce misconceptions regarding what is being incentivised. Incentivising vaccination was seen as coercive, but incentivising actions that increase the likelihood of vaccination (i.e. consent form return) were not. Incentives may encourage adolescents to return consent forms by helping them engage with this behaviour or increasing its' perceived value.

SUBMITTER: Rockliffe L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7446903 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative exploration of using financial incentives to improve vaccination uptake via consent form return in female adolescents in London.

Rockliffe Lauren L Stearns Selma S Forster Alice S AS

PloS one 20200821 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>Incentivising vaccine consent form return may improve vaccine uptake and be seen as less coercive than incentivising vaccination itself. We assessed the acceptability of financial incentives in this context among adolescent females and explored potential mechanisms by which incentives might change behaviour.<h4>Design</h4>Focus groups and analysis of free-text questionnaire responses.<h4>Methods</h4>Study 1: 36 female secondary students in London (age 13-14) participated in si ...[more]

PMID: 32822387

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFinancial incentives are an effective way of helping women to stop smoking during pregnancy. Unfortunately, most women who stop smoking at this time return to smoking within 12 months of the infant's birth. There is no evidence for interventions that are effective at preventing postpartum smoking relapse. Financial incentives provided after the birth may help women to sustain cessation. This randomised controlled trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to help women who are abstinent from smoking at end-of-pregnancy to avoid return to smoking up to 12 months postpartum.MethodsThis is a UK-based, multi-centre, three-arm, superiority, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with 1:1:1 allocation. It will compare the effectiveness of two financial incentive interventions with each other (one intervention for up to 3 months postpartum offering up to £120 of incentives (£60 for the participant and £60 for a significant other support); the other for up to 12 months postpartum with up to £300 of incentives (£240 for the participant and £60 for a significant other support) and with a no incentives/usual care control group. Eligible women will be between 34 weeks gestation and 2 weeks postpartum, abstinent from smoking for at least 4 weeks, have an expired carbon monoxide (CO) reading < 4 parts per million (ppm), aged at least 16 years, intend remaining abstinent from smoking after the birth and able to speak and read English. The primary outcome is self-reported, lapse-free, smoking abstinence from the last quit attempt in pregnancy until 12 months postpartum, biochemically validated by expired CO and/or salivary cotinine or anabasine. Outcomes will be analysed by intention-to-treat and regression models used to compare the proportion of abstinent women between the two intervention groups and between each intervention group and the control group. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of offering incentives and a qualitative process evaluation will examine barriers and facilitators to trial retention, effectiveness and implementation.DiscussionThis pragmatic randomised controlled trial will test whether offering financial incentives is effective and cost-effective for helping women to avoid smoking relapse during the 12 months after the birth of their baby.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number 55218215 . Registered retrospectively on 5th June 2019.

Project description:Importance:Colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Objective:To examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants:This parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled. Interventions:Interventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures. Results:A total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance:Financial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.

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

A qualitative exploration of using financial incentives to improve vaccination uptake via consent form return in female adolescents in London.

Publications

A qualitative exploration of using financial incentives to improve vaccination uptake via consent form return in female adolescents in London.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets