IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v23y2022i9d10.1007_s10198-022-01438-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics

Author

Listed:
  • Axel C. Mühlbacher

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg
    Gesellschaft Für Empirische Beratung GmbH
    Duke University)

  • Andrew Sadler

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg)

  • Yvonne Jordan

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg)

Abstract

Problem Policymakers must decide on interventions to control the pandemic. These decisions are driven by weighing the risks and benefits of various non-pharmaceutical intervention alternatives. Due to the nature of the pandemic, these decisions are not based on sufficient evidence regarding the effects, nor are decision-makers informed about the willingness of populations to accept the economic and health risks associated with different policy options. This empirical study seeks to reduce uncertainty by measuring population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions. Methods An online-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit population preferences. Respondents were asked to choose between three pandemic scenarios with different interventions and impacts of the Corona pandemic. In addition, Best–worst scaling (BWS) was used to analyze the impact of the duration of individual interventions on people’s acceptance. The marginal rate of substitution was applied to estimate willingness-to-accept (WTA) for each intervention and effect by risk of infection. Results Data from 3006 respondents were included in the analysis. The DCE showed, economic effect of non-pharmaceutical measures had a large impact on choice decisions for or against specific lockdown scenarios. Individual income decreases had the most impact. Excess mortality and individual risk of infection were also important factors influencing choice decisions. Curfews, contact restrictions, facility closures, personal data transmissions, and mandatory masking in public had a lesser impact. However, significant standard deviations in the random parameter logit model (RPL) indicated heterogeneities in the study population. The BWS results showed that short-term restrictions were more likely to be accepted than long-term restrictions. According to WTA estimates, people would be willing to accept a greater risk of infection to avoid loss of income. Discussion The results can be used to determine which consequences of pandemic measures would be more severe for the population. For example, the results show that citizens want to limit the decline in individual income during pandemic measures. Participation in preference studies can also inform citizens about potential tradeoffs that decision-makers face in current and future decisions during a pandemic. Knowledge of the population’s preferences will help inform decisions that consider people’s perspectives and expectations for the future. Survey results can inform decision-makers about the extent to which the population is willing to accept certain lockdown measures, such as curfews, contact restrictions, lockdowns, or mandatory masks.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Yvonne Jordan, 2022. "Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(9), pages 1483-1496, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01438-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01438-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-022-01438-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-022-01438-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McPhedran, Robert & Toombs, Ben, 2021. "Efficacy or delivery? An online Discrete Choice Experiment to explore preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in the UK," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Axel Mühlbacher & Susanne Bethge, 2016. "What matters in type 2 diabetes mellitus oral treatment? A discrete choice experiment to evaluate patient preferences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1125-1140, December.
    3. KESSELS, Roselinde & BRADLEY, Jones & GOOS, Peter, 2012. "A comparison of partial profile designs for discrete choice experiments with an application in software development," Working Papers 2012004, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    4. Jennifer A. Whitty & Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves, 2018. "A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best–Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 301-317, June.
    5. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    6. Tommi Tervonen & Aura Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno & Nicolas Krucien & Heather Gelhorn & Kevin Marsh & Sebastian Heidenreich, 2021. "Willingness to Wait for a Vaccine Against COVID-19: Results of a Preference Survey," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 373-377, May.
    7. Chernozhukov, Victor & Kasahara, Hiroyuki & Schrimpf, Paul, 2021. "Causal impact of masks, policies, behavior on early covid-19 pandemic in the U.S," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 220(1), pages 23-62.
    8. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kevin Marsh, 2021. "Prioritizing investments in rapid response vaccine technologies for emerging infections: A portfolio decision analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2021. "Economic preferences and compliance in the social stress test of the COVID-19 crisis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    10. Thierry Blayac & Dimitri Dubois & Sebastien Duchene & Phu Nguyen-Van & Bruno Ventelou & Marc Willinger, 2021. "Population preferences for inclusive COVID-19 policy responses," Post-Print hal-03663993, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2022. "What drives the acceptability of restrictive health policies: An experimental assessment of individual preferences for anti-COVID 19 strategies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Hess, Stephane & Lancsar, Emily & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Song, Fangqing & van den Broek-Altenburg, Eline & Alaba, Olufunke A. & Amaris, Gloria & Arellana, Julián & Basso, Leonardo J. & Ben, 2022. "The path towards herd immunity: Predicting COVID-19 vaccination uptake through results from a stated choice study across six continents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    3. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    4. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    5. Upasak Das & Rupayan Pal & Udayan Rathore & Bibhas Saha, 2023. "Rein in pandemic by pricing vaccine: Does social trust matter?," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2023-008, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    6. Grzybowski, Lukasz & Hasbi, Maude & Liang, Julienne, 2018. "Transition from copper to fiber broadband: The role of connection speed and switching costs," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Krista M. Milich & Natalie Fisher & Gisela Sobral, 2024. "Effective public health messaging for university students: lessons learned to increase adherence to safety guidelines during a pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    8. Kahanec, Martin & Lafférs, Lukáš & Schmidpeter, Bernhard, 2021. "The Impact of Mass Antigen Testing for COVID-19 on the Prevalence of the Disease," GLO Discussion Paper Series 775, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    9. Carlos Omar Trejo-Pech & Roselia Servín-Juárez & Álvaro Reyes-Duarte, 2023. "What sets cooperative farmers apart from non-cooperative farmers? A transaction cost economics analysis of coffee farmers in Mexico," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Maja Adena & Julian Harke, 2022. "COVID-19 and pro-sociality: How do donors respond to local pandemic severity, increased salience, and media coverage?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 824-844, June.
    11. Arroyos-Calvera, Danae & Covey, Judith & McDonald, Rebecca, 2023. "Are distributional preferences for safety stable? A longitudinal analysis before and after the COVID-19 outbreak," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    12. Óscar Brito Fernandes & Márta Péntek & Dionne Kringos & Niek Klazinga & László Gulácsi & Petra Baji, 2020. "Eliciting preferences for outpatient care experiences in Hungary: A discrete choice experiment with a national representative sample," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    14. Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln & Dirk Krueger & André Kurmann & Etienne Lalé & Alexander Ludwig & Irina Popova, 2023. "The Fiscal and Welfare Effects of Policy Responses to the Covid-19 School Closures," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 71(1), pages 35-98, March.
    15. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 667-677.
    16. Guo, Jiaqi & Wang, Qiang & Li, Rongrong, 2024. "Can official development assistance promote renewable energy in sub-Saharan Africa countries? A matter of institutional transparency of recipient countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    17. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Spatially explicit demand for afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 190-199.
    18. Carlos Barros, 2012. "Sustainable Tourism in Inhambane-Mozambique," CEsA Working Papers 105, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    19. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: the case of sweet pepper in Thailand," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 108349, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    20. Davide Furceri & Siddharth Kothari & Longmei Zhang, 2021. "The effects of COVID‐19 containment measures on the Asia‐Pacific region," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 469-497, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    SARS-CoV-2; Population preference; Discrete choice experiments; Best–worst scaling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C2 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • D79 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01438-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.