ArticleNature human behaviour2022
A citywide experiment testing the impact of geographically targeted, high-pay-off vaccine lotteries.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic and health consequence frames affect COVID-19 vaccine incentive attitudes in Germany- a survey based framing experiment.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- Behavioral Interventions for Increasing Seat Belt Use and Decreasing Distracted Driving Using Telematics: A National Randomized Trial.American journal of public health · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Reminders, but not monetary incentives, increase COVID-19 booster uptake.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Trial
- Descriptive norms can "backfire" in hyper-polarized contexts.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Policy makers believe money motivates more than it does.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Quasi-experimental evaluation of a financial incentive for first-dose COVID-19 vaccination among adults aged ≥60 years in South Africa.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccine Incentives Among Adolescents and Young Adults.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lotteries have been shown to motivate behaviour change in many settings, but their value as a policy tool is relatively untested. We implemented a pre-registered, citywide experiment to test the effects of three high-pay-off, geographically targeted lotteries designed to motivate adult Philadelphians to get their COVID-19 vaccine. In each drawing, the residents of a randomly selected 'treatment' zip code received half the lottery prizes, boosting their chances of winning to 50×-100× those of other Philadelphians. The first treated zip code, which drew considerable media attention, may have experienced a small bump in vaccinations compared with the control zip codes: average weekly vaccinations rose by an estimated 61 per 100,000 people per week (+11%). After pooling the results from all three zip codes treated during our six-week experiment, however, we do not detect evidence of any overall benefits. Furthermore, our 95% confidence interval provides a 9% upper bound on the net benefits of treatment in our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36050387What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.