1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Megastudy shows that reminders boost vaccination but adding free rides does not

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Encouraging routine COVID-19 vaccinations is likely to be a crucial policy challenge for decades to come. To avert hundreds of thousands of unnecessary hospitalizations and deaths, adoption will need to be higher than it was in the autumn of 2022 or 2023, when less than one-fifth of Americans received booster vaccines 1, 2 . One approach to encouraging vaccination is to eliminate the friction of transportation hurdles. Previous research has shown that friction can hinder follow-through 3 and that individuals who live farther from COVID-19 vaccination sites are less likely to get vaccinated 4 . However, the value of providing free round-trip transportation to vaccination sites is unknown. Here we show that offering people free round-trip Lyft rides to pharmacies has no benefit over and above sending them behaviourally informed text messages reminding them to get vaccinated. We determined this by running a megastudy with millions of CVS Pharmacy patients in the United States testing the effects of (1) free round-trip Lyft rides to CVS Pharmacies for vaccination appointments and (2) seven different sets of behaviourally informed vaccine reminder messages. Our results suggest that offering previously vaccinated individuals free rides to vaccination sites is not a good investment in the United States, contrary to the high expectations of both expert and lay forecasters. Instead, people in the United States should be sent behaviourally informed COVID-19 vaccination reminders, which increased the 30-day COVID-19 booster uptake by 21% (1.05 percentage points) and spilled over to increase 30-day influenza vaccinations by 8% (0.34 percentage points) in our megastudy. More rigorous testing of interventions to promote vaccination is needed to ensure that evidence-based solutions are deployed widely and that ineffective but intuitively appealing tools are discontinued.

          Abstract

          Contrary to expectations, offers of free transportation to vaccine sites did not increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake more than text message reminders, a finding that has implications for future policy decision-making to promote vaccination.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bayes Factors

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months

              Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. Methods In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-μg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. Results BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. Conclusions Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728 .)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kmilkman@wharton.upenn.edu
                Journal
                Nature
                Nature
                Nature
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                0028-0836
                1476-4687
                26 June 2024
                26 June 2024
                2024
                : 631
                : 8019
                : 179-188
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Operations, Information and Decisions, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, ( https://ror.org/00b30xv10) Philadelphia, PA USA
                [2 ]Behavior Change for Good Initiative, The Wharton School and the School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, ( https://ror.org/00b30xv10) Philadelphia, PA USA
                [3 ]Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, ( https://ror.org/047s2c258) College Park, MD USA
                [4 ]Department of Marketing, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, ( https://ror.org/00b30xv10) Philadelphia, PA USA
                [5 ]Department of Communication, Cornell University, ( https://ror.org/05bnh6r87) Ithaca, NY USA
                [6 ]Department of Economics, University of Chicago, ( https://ror.org/024mw5h28) Chicago, IL USA
                [7 ]Clinical Transformation and Behavioral Insights, Ascension Health, ( https://ror.org/00s1szh94) St Louis, MO USA
                [8 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Penn Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Departments of Medical Ethics and Health Policy and Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [9 ]CVS Health, ( https://ror.org/02jfw4p72) Woonsocket, RI USA
                [10 ]Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, ( https://ror.org/00b30xv10) Philadelphia, PA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9706-4830
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6099-0999
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9153-7193
                http://orcid.org/0009-0002-9621-6676
                http://orcid.org/0009-0005-1077-4020
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0452-965X
                http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5327-4958
                http://orcid.org/0009-0007-1239-320X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5686-1289
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8594-3627
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1740-3848
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9708-1596
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2644-3729
                Article
                7591
                10.1038/s41586-024-07591-x
                11222156
                38926578
                45fbe120-27a8-4b8e-b954-16a807348d33
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 24 May 2023
                : 20 May 2024
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Limited 2024

                Uncategorized
                human behaviour,economics,health policy,decision making
                Uncategorized
                human behaviour, economics, health policy, decision making

                Comments

                Comment on this article