The effectiveness of financial incentives for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review.

Financial incentives are a controversial strategy for increasing vaccination. In this systematic review, we evaluated: 1) the effects of incentives on COVID-19 vaccinations; 2) whether effects differed based on study outcome, study design, incentive type and timing, or sample sociodemographic characteristics; and 3) the cost of incentives per additional vaccine administered. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Econlit up to March 2022 for terms related to COVID, vaccines, and financial incentives, and identified 38 peer-reviewed, quantitative studies. Independent raters extracted study data and evaluated study quality. Studies examined the impact of financial incentives on COVID-19 vaccine uptake (k = 18), related psychological outcomes (e.g., vaccine intentions, k = 19), or both types of outcomes. For studies of vaccine uptake, none found that financial incentives had a negative effect on uptake, and most rigorous studies found that incentives had a positive effect on uptake. By contrast, studies of vaccine intentions were inconclusive. While three studies concluded that incentives may negatively impact vaccine intentions for some individuals, they had methodological limitations. Study outcomes (uptake versus intentions) and study design (experimental versus observational frameworks) appeared to influence results more than incentive type or timing. Additionally, income and political affiliation may moderate responses to incentives. Most studies evaluating cost per additional vaccine administered found that they ranged from $49-75. Overall, fears about financial incentives decreasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake are not supported by the evidence. Financial incentives likely increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. While these increases appear to be small, they may be meaningful across populations. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022316086 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022316086).

An Assessment of Faculty Perceptions of Wellness Needs and Strategies to Optimize Engagement With Wellness Resources in Academic Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Faculty at academic medical institutions are at increased risk for burnout. This study aimed to assess faculty perceptions of wellness needs and identify strategies to optimize engagement with individualized wellness resources. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 37 faculty members in one US academic medical center. RESULTS: Participants identified significant barriers to achieving emotional health and wellness goals. Areas where participants identified needing the most support included interpersonal relationships, accountability for wellness goals, career support, financial resources, and mentorship. Most participants were unaware of all wellness resources available at their institution. Participants recommended regular marketing and emphasizing confidentiality of employer-sponsored programs. They also provided feedback on specific dissemination and marketing methods. CONCLUSIONS: This research underscores the need for wellness resources for faculty and the importance of intentional dissemination of these resources to optimize uptake.

Leveraging behavioral economics and implementation science to engage patients at risk for suicide in mental health treatment: a pilot study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is an ideal setting to connect individuals at risk for suicide to follow-up care; however, only half of the patients referred from the primary care attend an initial mental health visit. We aim to develop acceptable, feasible, low-cost, and effective new strategies to increase treatment initiation among at-risk individuals identified in primary care. METHODS: We will conduct a multi-phase, mixed-methods study. First, we will conduct a chart review study by using administrative data, including medical records, to identify characteristics of primary care patients at risk for suicide who do or do not attend an initial mental health visit following a referral. Second, we will conduct a mixed methods study by using direct observations and qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (N = 65) to understand barriers and facilitators to mental health service initiation among at-risk individuals. Stakeholders will include patients with suicidal ideation referred from primary care who do and do not attend a first mental health visit, primary care and behavioral health providers, and individuals involved in the referral process. We also will collect preliminary self-report and behavioral data regarding potential mechanisms of behavior change (i.e., self-regulation and social support) from patients. Third, we will leverage these findings, relevant frameworks, and the extant literature to conduct a multi-arm, non-randomized feasibility trial. During this trial, we will rapidly prototype and test strategies to support attendance at initial mental health visits. Strategies will be developed with subject matter experts (N = 10) and iteratively pilot tested (~5 patients per strategy) and refined. Research will be completed in the Penn Integrated Care Program (PIC), which includes fourteen primary care clinics in Philadelphia that provide infrastructure for electronic referrals, patient communication, and data access. DISCUSSION: We will leverage frameworks and methods from behavioral economics and implementation science to develop strategies to increase mental health treatment initiation among individuals at risk for suicide identified in primary care. This project will lead to an evaluation of these strategies in a fully powered randomized trial and contribute to improvements in access to and engagement in mental health services for individuals at risk for suicide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05021224.