MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sibling spillovers and the choice to get vaccinated: Evidence from a regression discontinuity design

2023· article· en· W4390278155 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maria Knoth Humlum, Marius Opstrup Morthorst, Peter Thingholm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Economics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondCarlsbergfondetAarhus Universitet
KeywordsRegression discontinuity designSpillover effectDemographyDanishSiblingPercentage pointInequalityInstrumental variablePopulationRegressionNatural experimentVaccinationMedicineHuman papillomavirus vaccineDemographic economicsPsychologyEconometricsEconomicsEnvironmental healthDevelopmental psychologyCervical cancerStatisticsImmunologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the effects of introducing population-wide free-of-charge Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs on the targeted adolescent cohorts and their siblings. For identification, we rely on regression discontinuity designs and high-quality Danish administrative data to exploit that date of birth determines program eligibility. We find that the programs increased the HPV vaccine take-up of both the targeted children (53.2 percentage points for girls and 36.0 percentage points for boys) and their older same-sex siblings (4.5 percentage points for sisters and 3.5 percentage points for brothers). We show that while the direct effects of the programs reduced HPV vaccine take-up inequality, the spillover effects, in contrast, contributed to an increase in vaccine take-up inequality highlighting the potential importance of spillover effects in the determination of distributional consequences of public health programs. Finally, we find some evidence of cross-vaccine spillovers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health EconomicsSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207