ECOS – European COVID Survey

这项研究建议的目标是在新冠肺炎大流行的背景下，就公共卫生干预的行为有效性和可接受性产生科学证据。为了实现这一点，我们采用了一种研究设计，克服了以前研究的局限性。首先，我们的目标是继续收集数据，保留自大流行开始以来在我们的欧洲COVID调查(ECOS)的四次浪潮中进行的小组数据设计。这项调查代表了七个国家(丹麦、法国、德国、意大利、荷兰、葡萄牙和英国)中的每一个国家，每个国家有1000名受访者。其次，我们将把经验数据与实验相结合，以便对因果关系做出更有力的推断。在我们研究个体风险感知在保护行为变化中的作用的过程中，我们将通过对假设情况进行建模和进行经济激励的随机实验来获取风险感知，并具体得出风险偏好。继续收集数据将使我们能够回答以下研究问题：1)我们能否依赖大流行期间的个人风险认知作为坚持保护行为的动机因素？2)风险认知的变化是否会导致保护行为的变化或改变保护行为的意图？3)风险认知是如何形成的，它们是如何发展的，它们是否会因为大流行期间的保护行为而发生变化？第三，我们将探索各国疫苗运动的时间差异，以采用差异方法来衡量因果效应。在每个数据收集中，我们使用支付意愿方法学(WTP)得出了两种新冠肺炎疫苗的可接受性。持续的数据收集将使我们能够回答以下研究问题：1)随着时间的推移，欧洲七个国家对新冠肺炎疫苗的WTP有哪些(行为)决定因素？2)WTP数据产生了哪些分配优先级，这些与受访者声明的偏好相比如何？3)与总体人群相比，信息活动和/或疫苗可获得性是否改变了人群中对疫苗的偏好强度？新冠肺炎疫情的影响在欧盟各区域和人口群体中表现出高度异质性，引发了量身定制的政策应对需求，并导致各人口群体对政策措施的接受度参差不齐。有鉴于此，我们的发现不仅对于促进公共卫生应对新冠肺炎大流行具有重要意义，而且还将为应对未来的公共卫生突发事件提供行为洞察。

The objective of this research proposal is to generate scientific evidence on behavioral effectiveness and acceptability of public health interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve this, we employ a research design that overcomes the limitations of previous studies. First, we aim to continue data collection, preserving the panel data design that has been carried since the onset of the pandemic in four waves of our European COVID Survey (ECOS). The survey is representative for each of seven countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom) with 1000 respondents for each country. Second, we will combine empirical data with experiments to allow for a stronger inference about the causal relationship. In our pursuit of investigating the role of individual risk perceptions in changes in protective behavior, we will both acquire risk perceptions and specifically elicit risk preferences through modelling hypothetical situations and conducting financially incentivized randomized experiments. The continuation of data collection will allow us to answer the following research questions: 1) Can we rely on individual risk-perceptions during the pandemic as motivating factors for adherence to protective behaviors? 2) Can eliciting changes in risk perceptions lead to changes in protective behaviors or intentions to alter protective behaviors? 3) How are risk perceptions formed, how do they develop, and do they change because of protective behaviors over the course of the pandemic? Third, we will explore time differences in the countries vaccine campaigns to measure causal effects by employing a difference in difference approach. Within each data collection, we elicited the acceptability for two COVID-19 vaccines using the willingness to pay methodology (WTP). A continued data collection will allow us to answer the following research questions: 1) What are the (behavioral) determinants of the WTP for COVID-19 vaccines in seven European countries over time? 2) Which distributional priorities arise from the WTP data, and how do these compare to respondents' stated preferences? 3) Do information campaigns and/or vaccine availability change the strengths of preferences for a vaccine in sub-groups of the population, compared to the populations as a whole? The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic showed to be highly heterogeneous across the EU regions and population groups triggering the need for tailored policy responses and causing heterogeneous acceptability of policy measures across population groups. In light of this, our findings will be important not only to facilitate public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic but will also provide behavioral insights for tackling future public health emergencies.