ArticleHealth science reports2025
Economic Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination Among Employees of a Safety-Net Health System and Medical Center in Southern California: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Healthcare workers (HCWs) were pivotal in delivering care during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet vaccination uptake in the United States was lower than anticipated. This study investigated whether economic incentives, paid time off (PTO), raffle entry, or a direct financial incentive could influence vaccine uptake among HCWs exhibiting greater vaccine hesitancy. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in a large integrated safety-net health system. Using an adapted Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS), employees were classified as "more" vs "less" hesitant. For each incentive, respondents indicated whether it would influence their vaccination decision. Multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between demographic (age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, education, marital status) and employment factors (job type, COVID-19 exposure, pandemic impact on income/employment) and reported influence. Results: Of 684 respondents with complete hesitancy data, 282 (41.2%) were classified as more hesitant. Within this group, 41.4% reported PTO would influence their decision, 28.5% a financial incentive, and 20.3% a raffle. Employees < 50 years had higher odds of reporting influence for a financial incentive (aOR = 3.52; 95% CI: 1.64-8.23), raffle (aOR = 2.34; 1.01-5.41), and PTO (aOR = 1.89; 1.00-3.62). Nonclinical staff were more likely to report influence from a financial incentive than clinical staff (aOR = 2.16; 1.07-4.46). Those reporting negative pandemic-related income/employment impact showed a borderline association with financial incentives (aOR = 2.12; 0.99-4.59). Conclusion: Economic incentives are an effective strategy for improving vaccine uptake among younger HCWs, nonclinical staff, and those negatively affected financially by the pandemic. A targeted application of financial incentives may help address vaccine hesitancy in healthcare settings.
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.