Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40516004›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026

Time preferences and COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

Arthur E Attema, Marcello Antonini, Mesfin Genie, Aleksandra Torbica, Francesco Paolucci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Arthur E AttemaEsCHER, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands. attema@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3607-6579
Marcello AntoniniSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5816-2289
Mesfin GenieNewcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2300, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1744-4666
Aleksandra TorbicaDepartment of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, 20136, Milano, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8938-7608
Francesco PaolucciSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6173-5324

Funding

School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle Additional HDR Support Funds round 2022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the evolving COVID-19 endemic phase, the emergence of new variants and viruses may necessitate renewed efforts to control their spread. Understanding how individual preferences and attitudes influence vaccination behavior is crucial in preparation for this. This paper presents results from a multi-country online survey conducted in 22 countries between July 2022 and June 2023. The survey elicited individuals’ time preferences (discount rate and present bias) implementing choice list methodology and explored respondents’ behaviors and attitudes for vaccination using respectively revealed and stated preferences data through a Discrete Choice Experiment. Respondents were classified as vaccine accepters (one or more COVID-19 doses at the time of the data collection), hesitant (willing to get the vaccine if given conditions are met) and refuser (no intention to get the vaccine). Overall, we found no evidence of a present bias, but substantial variation in discount rate between respondents across different countries. Minimal differences between revealed and stated preferences data were found. Hesitant respondents revealed larger discount rates compared to the vaccinated respondents, indicating a stronger preference for immediate outcomes. On the contrary, refusers showed lower discount rates, indicating stronger preferences for future outcomes. The high discount rate of the hesitant group may result in a low weight given to the consequences of a future COVID-19 infection. Hence, policymakers could specifically target hesitant people to make the long-term advantages of COVID-19 vaccinations, in terms of reduced infection probability and lower disease severity in case of infection, more salient, or to focus more on the short-term benefits of vaccination, for instance by stressing the improved access it may bring to social events and the reduced chances of getting sick.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesVaccinationVaccination HesitancyAdultChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19Present biasTime preferenceVaccination

Identifiers

PMID40516004
PMCPMC12929247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.