Did Ohio’s Vaccine Lottery Increase Vaccination Rates? A Pre-Registered, Synthetic Control Study

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2022-02-07 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2021.32

Davi Lang, Lief Esbenshade, Robb Willer

引用次数: 25

Abstract

Abstract Overcoming vaccine hesitancy is critical to containing the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To increase vaccination rates, the State of Ohio launched a million dollar lottery in May 2021. Following a pre-registered analysis, we estimate the effects of Ohio’s lottery program Vax-a-Million on COVID-19 vaccination rates by comparing it to a “synthetic control” composed of eight other states. We find a statistically insignificant 1.3% decrease in the full vaccination rate in Ohio at the end of the lottery period. We investigate the robustness of our conclusion to model specifications through a multiverse analysis of 216 possible models, including longer time periods and alternative vaccination measures. The majority (88%) find small negative effects in line with the results of our pre-registered model. While our results are most consistent with a decrease in vaccination rate, they do not allow a firm conclusion on whether the lottery increased or decreased vaccine uptake.

查看原文本刊更多论文

俄亥俄州的疫苗抽奖增加了疫苗接种率吗?一项预先注册的合成对照研究

摘要克服疫苗犹豫对于遏制美国新冠肺炎疫情至关重要。为了提高疫苗接种率，俄亥俄州于2021年5月推出了一项百万美元彩票。根据预先注册的分析，我们通过将俄亥俄州的彩票计划Vax-a-Million与由其他八个州组成的“综合控制”进行比较，估计其对新冠肺炎疫苗接种率的影响。我们发现，在彩票期结束时，俄亥俄州的完全疫苗接种率下降了1.3%，这在统计上是微不足道的。我们通过对216个可能的模型进行多元宇宙分析，包括更长的时间段和替代疫苗接种措施，来研究我们的结论对模型规范的稳健性。大多数人（88%）发现与我们预先注册的模型的结果一致的小负面影响。虽然我们的结果与疫苗接种率的下降最为一致，但它们无法就彩票是增加还是减少疫苗接种率得出确切结论。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.