Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the short-term and long-term effectiveness of different levels of financial incentives on increasing the willingness to vaccinate and vaccine uptake.
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of financial incentives of three groups with monetary incentives (CNY 20, CNY 40, and CNY 60; 1 CNY = 0.13 EUR) vs. a control group-CNY 0-on influenza vaccine uptake among 720 older adults (≥60 years) in Beijing, China. The primary outcome was vaccine uptake, and the secondary outcomes were intention to vaccinate and length of time to immunization.
RESULTS: Financial incentive significantly promoted higher intention to influenza vaccination (120/178 [67.42%] vs. 442/542 [81.55%]; Relative Risk [RR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and higher vaccination participation (74/178 [41.57%] vs. 316/542 [58.30%]; RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.75). CNY 60 had the largest impact on the intention to vaccinate (15.00% vs. 13.48% and 13.90%) and vaccination uptake (19.42% vs. 14.05% and 16.67%) compared with CNY 20 and CNY 40. Time to vaccination was significantly lower among participants receiving incentives than those without ([37.21 days; 95% CI, 34.33-39.99] vs. [48.27 days; 95% CI, 43.47-53.07]; Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.57, 95% CI 1.22-2.03). We found no long-term influence of financial incentives on vaccination decisions in the following year (217/542, 40.04% vs. 65/178, 36.52%; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82-1.42).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that modest financial incentives will boost short-term influenza vaccination rates and shorten the length of time to immunization in China. No one single-time financial incentive had a long-term effect on future vaccination behaviours or helped establish regular vaccination behaviours.
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of financial incentives of three groups with monetary incentives (CNY 20, CNY 40, and CNY 60; 1 CNY = 0.13 EUR) vs. a control group-CNY 0-on influenza vaccine uptake among 720 older adults (≥60 years) in Beijing, China. The primary outcome was vaccine uptake, and the secondary outcomes were intention to vaccinate and length of time to immunization.
RESULTS: Financial incentive significantly promoted higher intention to influenza vaccination (120/178 [67.42%] vs. 442/542 [81.55%]; Relative Risk [RR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and higher vaccination participation (74/178 [41.57%] vs. 316/542 [58.30%]; RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.75). CNY 60 had the largest impact on the intention to vaccinate (15.00% vs. 13.48% and 13.90%) and vaccination uptake (19.42% vs. 14.05% and 16.67%) compared with CNY 20 and CNY 40. Time to vaccination was significantly lower among participants receiving incentives than those without ([37.21 days; 95% CI, 34.33-39.99] vs. [48.27 days; 95% CI, 43.47-53.07]; Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.57, 95% CI 1.22-2.03). We found no long-term influence of financial incentives on vaccination decisions in the following year (217/542, 40.04% vs. 65/178, 36.52%; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82-1.42).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that modest financial incentives will boost short-term influenza vaccination rates and shorten the length of time to immunization in China. No one single-time financial incentive had a long-term effect on future vaccination behaviours or helped establish regular vaccination behaviours.
摘要：
目的：探讨不同程度的财政激励措施对提高疫苗接种意愿和接种疫苗的短期和长期效果。
方法：进行了一项随机对照试验，以研究在北京720名老年人（≥60岁）接种流感疫苗的三组（CNY20，CNY40和CNY60；1CNY=0.13EUR）与对照组-CNY0-的金钱激励措施的有效性。中国。主要结果是疫苗摄取，次要结局是疫苗接种意向和免疫接种时间.
结果：财务激励显着提高了120/178流感疫苗接种意愿，67.42％与442/542，81.55%；RR1.21，95CI1.02-1.42）和更高的疫苗接种参与率（74/178，41.57%与316/542，58.30%；RR1.39，95CI1.10-1.75）。CNY60对疫苗接种意向的影响最大(15.00%与13.48%和13.90%）和疫苗接种率（19.42%vs.14.05%和16.67%）与CNY20和CNY40相比。接受奖励的参与者接种疫苗的时间明显低于没有奖励的参与者([37.21天，95CI34.33-39.99]vs.[48.27天，95CI43.47-53.07]；HR1.57，95CI1.22-2.03）。我们发现，在接下来的一年中，财务激励措施对疫苗接种决策没有长期影响(217/542，40.04%vs.65/178，36.52%；RR1.08，95CI0.82-1.42）。
结论：我们的研究表明，适度的财政激励措施将提高短期流感疫苗接种率，并缩短中国的免疫接种时间。没有任何一次性的财务激励措施对未来的疫苗接种行为产生长期影响或有助于建立定期的疫苗接种行为。
方法：进行了一项随机对照试验，以研究在北京720名老年人（≥60岁）接种流感疫苗的三组（CNY20，CNY40和CNY60；1CNY=0.13EUR）与对照组-CNY0-的金钱激励措施的有效性。中国。主要结果是疫苗摄取，次要结局是疫苗接种意向和免疫接种时间.
结果：财务激励显着提高了120/178流感疫苗接种意愿，67.42％与442/542，81.55%；RR1.21，95CI1.02-1.42）和更高的疫苗接种参与率（74/178，41.57%与316/542，58.30%；RR1.39，95CI1.10-1.75）。CNY60对疫苗接种意向的影响最大(15.00%与13.48%和13.90%）和疫苗接种率（19.42%vs.14.05%和16.67%）与CNY20和CNY40相比。接受奖励的参与者接种疫苗的时间明显低于没有奖励的参与者([37.21天，95CI34.33-39.99]vs.[48.27天，95CI43.47-53.07]；HR1.57，95CI1.22-2.03）。我们发现，在接下来的一年中，财务激励措施对疫苗接种决策没有长期影响(217/542，40.04%vs.65/178，36.52%；RR1.08，95CI0.82-1.42）。
结论：我们的研究表明，适度的财政激励措施将提高短期流感疫苗接种率，并缩短中国的免疫接种时间。没有任何一次性的财务激励措施对未来的疫苗接种行为产生长期影响或有助于建立定期的疫苗接种行为。
