SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Impact of incentives on COVID-19 vaccination; A systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Estimating the effects of interventions on increasing vaccination: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2025Pooled it
- Economic and health consequence frames affect COVID-19 vaccine incentive attitudes in Germany- a survey based framing experiment.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- Loss-framing of information and pre-vaccination consultation improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: A survey experiment.Frontiers in public health · 2023Trial
- Incentivizing Immunity: Black and Latinx Individuals' Attitudes About COVID-19 Vaccine Incentives.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- The era of "Infectious Diseases+" has arrived: multi-disciplinary integration in pediatric infectious disease prevention and control.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Economic Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination Among Employees of a Safety-Net Health System and Medical Center in Southern California: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic status correlates with COVID-19 vaccination coverage among primary and secondary students in the most populated city of Chile.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Acute Respiratory Tract Infections in Pediatric Populations of Slum Areas: Navigating Challenges and Dynamics of Immune Responses.Current pediatric reviews · 2025Review
- Modifiable social and structural factors influence COVID-19 vaccine intention among frontline workers in the Midwestern USA: a community-engaged survey study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- University Students' Vaccination Intention after the Fifth Wave of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Hong Kong: Inspiration from a Health Belief Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Behavioral and social drivers of COVID-19 vaccination initiation in the US: a longitudinal study March─ October 2021.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the user satisfaction on COVID-19 vaccination service in Indonesia.Journal of public health research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.