Impact of incentives on COVID-19 vaccination; A systematic review

Parham Mardi · Shirin Djalalinia · Reza Kargar · Zahra Esmaeili Abdar · Mostafa Qorbani

22 citations0/0 files storedFrontiers in Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research

Abstract

Introduction: Although vaccination is the most effective way to limit and overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, a considerable fraction of them are not intended to get vaccinated. This study aims to investigate the existing research evidence and evaluate the effectiveness and consequences of all incentives provided for increasing the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and SCOPUS from 2020 until October 10, 2021, was conducted on experimental studies evaluating the effects of incentives including cash, lottery voucher, and persuasive messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention and uptake. The study selection process, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two investigators using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010) checklist. Results: Twenty-four records were included in the qualitative analysis. Most of the included studies assessed the effect of financial incentives. In 14 studies (58%) the assessed outcome was vaccination uptake and in nine (37.5%) others it was vaccination intention. One study considered self-reported vaccination status as the outcome. This study shows that high financial incentives and the Vax-a-million lottery are attributed to a higher vaccination rate, while the low amount of financial incentives, other lotteries, and persuasive messages have small or non-significant effects. Conclusion: Paying a considerable amount of cash and Vax-a-million lottery are attributed to a higher vaccination. Nevertheless, there is a controversy over the effect of other incentives including other lotteries, low amount of cash, and messages on vaccination. It is noteworthy that, inconsistency and imprecision of included studies should be considered.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration 2015Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants 2021Challenges in ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines: production, affordability, allocation, and deployment 2011CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2021Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations 2022Revisiting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy around the world using data from 23 countries in 2021 2020Evidence-Based Strategies for Clinical Organizations to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy 2021Enablers and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake: An international study of perceptions and intentions

Cited by

2023Loss-framing of information and pre-vaccination consultation improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: A survey experiment 2025Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Health Behavior Change: A Narrative Review and Analysis

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.