Search

Abstract Background Public health depends largely on people’s knowledge, beliefs, or behaviors regarding their health and medical treatments. Although works based on the health belief model have shown that public beliefs about medical treatments affect willingness to take the treatments, little is known about the effects of changes in beliefs on attitudes toward treatment. How one’s past experiences relate to one’s beliefs about a given medical treatment is worth considering. Methods We implemented an online panel survey in February 2021 and March 2022 in Japan before and after COVID-19 vaccines were administered to the public within the country. We exploited delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, namely, “COVID arm”, as an exogenous shock to investigate the relationship between past negative experiences and current beliefs about medical treatments or science. “COVID arm” was an unexpected side effect and thus likely caused updated beliefs about the vaccine. Out of the nonprobability sample of 15,000 respondents in the first wave in February 2021, 9,668 respondents also responded to the second wave conducted in March 2022. Outcome variables were whether experiencing “COVID arm” affected the respondents’ 1) confidence in vaccine safety, 2) willingness to take the next dose of COVID-19 vaccines, 3) acknowledgment of the importance of vaccination, and 4) confidence in science. We measured the impact of experience with “COVID arm” on changes in the probability that survey respondents would respond affirmatively to questions posed about the issues listed above. Results Experiencing “COVID arm” significantly lowered confidence in the safety of vaccination by 4.3 percentage points, which was approximately 6% of the sample mean for the first wave, and lowered the probability of taking a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by 1.5 percentage points. These adverse impacts were observed after conditioning background characteristics and prior confidence in vaccination. Experiencing “COVID arm” affected neither the acknowledged importance of vaccination nor confidence in science in a statistically significant way. Conclusions An unexpected and uncomfortable shock regarding beliefs about a treatment decreases willingness to take the treatment. An appropriate public health policy should account for this effect. Trial registration The survey was preregistered with the American Economic Association’s RCT Registry (Fukai et al., 2022).

ABSTRACTVocational school graduates enjoy a higher employment probability than other types of graduates across industrial economies. This may result from either the signaling effects of vocational school degrees or skill complementarity between vocational schooling and work experience. Regarding wage regressions, signaling effects should make the coefficient of the interaction term between years of schooling and work experience negative, whereas complementarity between education and work experience should increase this coefficient because the cross-derivative of output with respect to schooling and work experience is positive. Thus, the negativity of the interaction term between years of schooling and work experience decreases as schooling becomes more complementary to work. We find that the negativity of the interaction term is smaller for vocational track graduates than for general track graduates in Russia. This result is arguably because the Russian vocational track emphasizes complementarity between education and work to a greater degree than its general track.

Objective: Medicine is a scarce resource and a public good that benefits others by bettering patients’ health. COVID-19 vaccines in shortage are, 1) a scarce resource and 2) a public good with the positive externality of building herd immunity. These features are expected to drive citizens’ attitudes in opposite directions, exclusionist and inclusionist, respectively. Scarcity would drive citizens’ exclusionism, while the positive externality might mitigate exclusionism. Setting and design: We recruited 15,000 Japanese adults and asked them to rank, in the context of a COVID-19 vaccine shortage, the deservingness of hypothetical vaccine recipients who differed according to 1) citizenship status, 2) visa type and duration of stay (if foreign), 3) occupation, 4) age, 5) whether they lived with a child, and 6) whether they lived with an elderly individual. Citizenship options were Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, South Korean, American, or European. The occupations were healthcare, education, other employed, self-employed, or not employed. The 6 attributes were randomly combined, and respondents were shown 3 hypothetical vaccine recipients: one was Japanese, and the others were foreigners. Treatments: First, through a conjoint design, we created hypothetical vaccine recipients whose attributes were randomized except for the benchmark citizenship, Japanese national. Second, we randomly presented two scenarios for vaccination payments: 1) billed at cost or 2) fully subsidized by the government. Results: 1) Whether the vaccines were billed at cost or fully subsidized did not affect the rankings of deservingness. 2) Japanese citizenship was prioritized. 3) The penalty for being a foreigner was higher for individuals from nations with which Japan has geopolitical tensions. 4) Working in health or education reduced the penalty on foreigners, indicating that the positive externality related to occupation amplifies the positive externality associated with vaccination and mitigates exclusionist attitudes. Conclusions: The positive occupational externalities that amplify the positive externality of vaccination substantially allay the foreigner penalty.

Objective: Vaccination is a critical measure for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. We survey the determinants that affect the preference for COVID-19 vaccines in Japan, a vaccine hesitant nation. Setting and design: We conducted a randomized conjoint analysis survey of the preference for vaccines on the Internet by recruiting a nonprobability sample of 15,000 Japanese adults. The survey assigned 5 choice tasks to the respondents. In each task, the respondents evaluated 2 hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines and were asked which they would choose. The vaccine attributes included efficacy, major and minor adverse side effects, country of vaccine development and clinical trial, and vaccine type. Treatment: The choice task asked the participants to select a vaccine from 2 hypothetical vaccines as an optional vaccine or select a vaccine as mandated one with a probability of 0.5 for each. Results: Compared to China-developed vaccines, domestically developed or US-developed vaccines raised the choice probability by 37.3 and 27.4 percentage points, respectively. A domestic clinical trial increased the choice probability by 14.8, an increase in efficacy from 50% to 90% increased that by 18.0, and a decrease in the risk of severe adverse side effects from 1 per 10 thousand to 1 per 1 million increased that by 16.9 percentage points, respectively. The vaccine type was irrelevant. Making vaccination compulsory increased the choice probability of China- and Russia-developed vaccines by 0.6 and 0.4, high-risk vaccines by 0.5, and a modestly effective (70%) vaccine by 0.4 percentage points, respectively. General vaccination hesitancy, political positions, demographic characteristics, education, and income were irrelevant. Conclusions: A domestically developed vaccine with a domestic clinical trial could substantially increase the preference for the vaccine. Making vaccination compulsory could modestly reduce the penalty for a vaccine with adverse side effects, geopolitical, and efficacy concerns, possibly through mitigating free-riding concerns to achieve herd immunity.