Association Between Statewide COVID-19 Lottery Announcements and Vaccinations
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dave D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8727031 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To promote COVID-19 vaccination, many states in the US introduced financial incentives ranging from small, guaranteed rewards to lotteries that give vaccinated individuals a chance to win large prizes. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of these programs and conflicting evidence from survey experiments and studies of individual states' lotteries. To assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination incentive programs, we combined information on statewide incentive programs in the US with data on daily vaccine doses administered in each state. Leveraging variation across states in the daily availability of incentives, our difference-in-differences analyses showed that statewide programs were not associated with a significant change in vaccination rates. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in vaccination trends between states with and without incentives in any of the 14 days before or after incentives were introduced. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that neither lotteries nor guaranteed rewards were associated with significant change in vaccination rates.
| S-EPMC8966995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere is limited evidence on whether COVID-19 vaccine incentive lotteries help to increase vaccine uptake.ObjectiveTo estimate whether and to what extent statewide implementation of lottery programs is associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data from 403 714 adults who answered the question, "have you received a COVID-19 vaccine?" on the Household Pulse Survey (HPS) and state-level daily vaccination rates for 11 states implementing a vaccine lottery program (ie, treated states) and 28 states with no such program (ie, control states). A difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis used responses to the HPS question and compared changes in vaccine uptake between treated and control states. The augmented synthetic control (ASC) analysis compared state-level daily new vaccination rates in treated states with their synthetic versions constructed from a donor pool of control states. Data were analyzed from March 17 to July 5, 2021.ExposuresAnnouncement of the vaccine lottery programs and states implementing such programs.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome variable in the DiD analysis was the binary indicator of self-reported vaccination status. In the ASC analysis, it was the state-level daily new first vaccine dose administered per 100 000 people (logarithm scale).ResultsA total of 403 714 individuals (mean [SD] age, 52.7 [15.7] years; 239 563 [weighted percentage, 51.6%] women; 31 746 [weighted percentage, 11.9%] Black; 39 709 [weighted percentage, 18.2%] Hispanic; 334 034 [weighted percentage, 76.4%] White) responded to the question in HPS regarding vaccination status. Overall, 80 949 respondents (weighted percentage, 28.1%) in the HPS were unvaccinated. A pooled analysis from both methods indicated that the lottery programs were associated with increased vaccinations. The ASC analysis revealed that lottery programs were associated with an increase of 0.208 log points (95% CI, 0.004-0.412 log points), implying an average 23.12% increment in the new daily vaccination rate. In state-specific analyses, both methods suggested that the vaccine lottery programs were helpful in Ohio (0.09 log points; P < .001), Maryland (0.26 log points; P < .001), Oregon (0.15 log points; P = .002), and Washington (0.37 log points; P < .001) but not in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. The ASC analysis found that lottery programs were positively associated with vaccinations in New Mexico (0.32 log points; P < .001) and New York (0.33 log points; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that lottery programs may be associated with decreased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, but that success might differ across states. The findings could also be useful in the ongoing debate on persuading US residents who are not yet vaccinated.
| S-EPMC8662369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn the US, states enacted nonpharmaceutical interventions, including school closure, to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). All 50 states closed schools in March 2020 despite uncertainty if school closure would be effective.ObjectiveTo determine if school closure and its timing were associated with decreased COVID-19 incidence and mortality.Design, setting, and participantsUS population-based observational study conducted between March 9, 2020, and May 7, 2020, using interrupted time series analyses incorporating a lag period to allow for potential policy-associated changes to occur. To isolate the association of school closure with outcomes, state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and attributes were included in negative binomial regression models. States were examined in quartiles based on state-level COVID-19 cumulative incidence per 100?000 residents at the time of school closure. Models were used to derive the estimated absolute differences between schools that closed and schools that remained open as well as the number of cases and deaths if states had closed schools when the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was in the lowest quartile compared with the highest quartile.ExposuresClosure of primary and secondary schools.Main outcomes and measuresCOVID-19 daily incidence and mortality per 100?000 residents.ResultsCOVID-19 cumulative incidence in states at the time of school closure ranged from 0 to 14.75 cases per 100?000 population. School closure was associated with a significant decline in the incidence of COVID-19 (adjusted relative change per week, -62% [95% CI, -71% to -49%]) and mortality (adjusted relative change per week, -58% [95% CI, -68% to -46%]). Both of these associations were largest in states with low cumulative incidence of COVID-19 at the time of school closure. For example, states with the lowest incidence of COVID-19 had a -72% (95% CI, -79% to -62%) relative change in incidence compared with -49% (95% CI, -62% to -33%) for those states with the highest cumulative incidence. In a model derived from this analysis, it was estimated that closing schools when the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was in the lowest quartile compared with the highest quartile was associated with 128.7 fewer cases per 100?000 population over 26 days and with 1.5 fewer deaths per 100?000 population over 16 days.Conclusions and relevanceBetween March 9, 2020, and May 7, 2020, school closure in the US was temporally associated with decreased COVID-19 incidence and mortality; states that closed schools earlier, when cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was low, had the largest relative reduction in incidence and mortality. However, it remains possible that some of the reduction may have been related to other concurrent nonpharmaceutical interventions.
| S-EPMC7391181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The risk of seizure following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations has been sparsely investigated. This study aimed to evaluate this association. Patients who had their first seizure-related hospitalization between February 23, 2021 and January 31, 2022, were identified in Hong Kong. All seizure episodes happening on the day of vaccination (day 0) were excluded, since clinicians validated that most of the cases on day 0 were syncopal episodes. Within-individual comparison using a modified self-controlled case series analysis was applied to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of seizure using conditional Poisson regression. We identified 1656 individuals who had their first seizure-related hospitalization (BNT162b2: 426; CoronaVac: 263; unvaccinated: 967) within the observation period. The incidence of seizure was 1.04 (95% CI .80-1.33) and 1.11 (95% CI .80-1.50) per 100 000 doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac administered, respectively. Sixteen and 17 individuals, respectively, received a second dose after having a first seizure within 28 days after the first dose of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations. None had recurrent seizures after the second dose. There was no increased risk during day 1-6 after the first (BNT162b2: IRR = 1.39, 95% CI = .75-2.58; CoronaVac: IRR = 1.19, 95% CI = .50-2.83) and second doses (BNT162b2: IRR = 1.36, 95% CI = .72-2.57; CoronaVac: IRR = .71, 95% CI = .22-2.30) of vaccinations. During 7-13, 14-20, and 21-27 days post-vaccination, no association was observed for either vaccine. The findings demonstrated no increased risk of seizure following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations. Future studies will be warranted to evaluate the risk of seizure following COVID-19 vaccinations in different populations, with subsequent doses to ensure the generalizability.
| S-EPMC9874430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Poor health and unhealthy lifestyles are substantially more prevalent among individuals with low income than among individuals with high income, but the underlying mechanisms are not well understood. Objective:To evaluate whether changes to unearned wealth from lotteries are associated with long-term health behaviors and overall health. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this quasi-experimental cohort study, 4820 participants (aged 18-70 years at the time of winning) in 3 Swedish lotteries were surveyed from September 1, 2016, to November 11, 2016, between 5 and 22 years after a lottery event. Outcomes of participants in the same lottery who were randomly assigned prizes of different magnitudes by the lotteries but were ex ante identical in terms of their probability of winning different prizes were compared. Data were analyzed from December 22, 2016, to November 21, 2019. Exposures:Lottery prizes ranged from $0 for nonwinning players to $1.6 million. Main Outcomes and Measures:Four lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and a healthy diet index) and 2 measures of overall health (subjective health and an index of total health derived from responses to questions about 35 health conditions). Results:The survey was returned by 3344 of 4820 individuals (69%; 1722 [51.5%] male), which corresponded to 3362 observations. The mean (SD) age was 48 (11.8) years in the year of the lottery win and 60 (11.0) years at the time of the survey. There were no statistically significant associations between prize amount won and any of the 6 long-term health outcomes. Estimated associations expressed in SD units per $100 000 won were as follows: smoking (-0.006, 95% CI, -0.038 to 0.026); alcohol consumption (0.003, 95% CI, -0.027 to 0.033); physical activity (0.001, 95% CI, -0.029 to 0.032); dietary quality (-0.007, 95% CI, -0.040 to 0.026); subjective health (0.013, 95% CI, -0.017 to 0.043); and index of total health (-0.003, 95% CI, -0.033 to 0.027). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study of Swedish lottery players, unearned wealth from random lottery prize winnings was not associated with subsequent healthy lifestyle factors or overall health. The findings suggest that large, random transfers of unearned wealth are unlikely to be associated with large, long-term changes in health habits or overall health.
| S-EPMC7082720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to delayed medical care in the United States. We examined changes in patterns of cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment between January 1 and December 31 in 2020 and 2019 with real-time electronic pathology report data from population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries from Georgia and Louisiana. During 2020, there were 29 905 fewer pathology reports than in 2019, representing a 10.2% decline. Declines were observed in all age groups, including children and adolescents younger than 18 years. The nadir was early April 2020, with 42.8% fewer reports than in April 2019. Numbers of reports through December 2020 never consistently exceeded those in 2019 after first declines. Patterns were similar by age group and cancer site. Findings suggest substantial delays in diagnosis and treatment services for cancers during the pandemic. Ongoing evaluation can inform public health efforts to minimize any lasting adverse effects of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis, stage, treatment, and survival.
| S-EPMC9194624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The stalling of COVID-19 vaccination rates threatens public health. To increase vaccination rates, governments across the world are considering the use of monetary incentives. Here we present evidence about the effect of guaranteed payments on COVID-19 vaccination uptake. We ran a large preregistered randomized controlled trial (with 8286 participants) in Sweden and linked the data to population-wide administrative vaccination records. We found that modest monetary payments of 24 US dollars (200 Swedish kronor) increased vaccination rates by 4.2 percentage points (P = 0.005), from a baseline rate of 71.6%. By contrast, behavioral nudges increased stated intentions to become vaccinated but had only small and not statistically significant impacts on vaccination rates. The results highlight the potential of modest monetary incentives to raise vaccination rates.
| S-EPMC10765478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Enhancing vaccine uptake is a critical public health challenge1. Overcoming vaccine hesitancy2,3 and failure to follow through on vaccination intentions3 requires effective communication strategies3,4. Here we present two sequential randomized controlled trials to test the effect of behavioural interventions on the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. We designed text-based reminders that make vaccination salient and easy, and delivered them to participants drawn from a healthcare system one day (first randomized controlled trial) (n = 93,354 participants; clinicaltrials number NCT04800965) and eight days (second randomized controlled trial) (n = 67,092 individuals; clinicaltrials number NCT04801524) after they received a notification of vaccine eligibility. The first reminder boosted appointment and vaccination rates within the healthcare system by 6.07 (84%) and 3.57 (26%) percentage points, respectively; the second reminder increased those outcomes by 1.65 and 1.06 percentage points, respectively. The first reminder had a greater effect when it was designed to make participants feel ownership of the vaccine dose. However, we found no evidence that combining the first reminder with a video-based information intervention designed to address vaccine hesitancy heightened its effect. We performed online studies (n = 3,181 participants) to examine vaccination intentions, which revealed patterns that diverged from those of the first randomized controlled trial; this underscores the importance of pilot-testing interventions in the field. Our findings inform the design of behavioural nudges for promoting health decisions5, and highlight the value of making vaccination easy and inducing feelings of ownership over vaccines.
| S-EPMC8443442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the three vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) that have received emergency use authorization in the United States are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Data are needed on the serial use of homologous boosters (same as the primary vaccine) and heterologous boosters (different from the primary vaccine) in fully vaccinated recipients.MethodsIn this phase 1-2, open-label clinical trial conducted at 10 sites in the United States, adults who had completed a Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier and had no reported history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines: mRNA-1273 (Moderna) at a dose of 100 μg, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) at a dose of 5×1010 virus particles, or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) at a dose of 30 μg. The primary end points were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on trial days 15 and 29.ResultsOf the 458 participants who were enrolled in the trial, 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.COV2.S, and 153 received BNT162b2 as booster vaccines; 1 participant did not receive the assigned vaccine. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. More than half the recipients reported having injection-site pain, malaise, headache, or myalgia. For all combinations, antibody neutralizing titers against a SARS-CoV-2 D614G pseudovirus increased by a factor of 4 to 73, and binding titers increased by a factor of 5 to 55. Homologous boosters increased neutralizing antibody titers by a factor of 4 to 20, whereas heterologous boosters increased titers by a factor of 6 to 73. Spike-specific T-cell responses increased in all but the homologous Ad26.COV2.S-boosted subgroup. CD8+ T-cell levels were more durable in the Ad26.COV2.S-primed recipients, and heterologous boosting with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine substantially increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells in the mRNA vaccine recipients.ConclusionsHomologous and heterologous booster vaccines had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in adults who had completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; DMID 21-0012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04889209.).
| S-EPMC8820244 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8810374 | biostudies-literature