31 October Seminar: COVID-19 is (Probably) Not an Exogenous Shock or Valid Instrument

masv on 29. October 2024

For the fifth Pandemics & Society Seminar of our Fall 2024 series we are pleased to welcome Jeff Clement (Augsburg University). The seminar will be held on Thursday, 31 October at the normal time (1600 CEST). More information about our speaker and the presentation is below. For our attendees outside of Europe, please note that Central European Summer Time has ended, you can check the seminar time in your time zone here. You can sign up for email notifications about the seminar series, including the Zoom details, here.

Abstract

Working Paper available here

Empirical investigations of many information systems phenomena are complicated by endogeneity. The Covid-19 pandemic prompted a wide range of policy and societal changes that seem to present a natural experiment. Researchers have attempted to use these changes, such as mandated closures of non-essential businesses, as exogenous shocks or instrumental variables in causal inference, with the goal of evaluating a theory or phenomenon not related to the pandemic. However, the rationale that the Covid-19 response prompted changes (such as business and school closures) that were decided by an agent “outside the unit of analysis” is not sufficient to meet the criteria for exogeneity. We concisely describe and demonstrate via simulation that the wide-ranging impacts of Covid-19—which were driven by politics, personality, and socioeconomics, and implemented in bundles—violate the parallel trends assumption for difference-in-differences analyses and the exclusion restriction for instrumental variable analyses. Our hope is that this analysis helps IS researchers avoid such problems moving forward.

About the Speaker

Jeff Clement is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at the School of Business and Economics at Augsburg University in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. His research explores topics in healthcare (especially related to emergency/pre-hospital care and pharmaceuticals), AI-augmented decisions, and the intersection of those topics. He received his PhD from the University of Minnesota.

10 October Seminar: Democratization and Excess COVID-19 Mortality in the EU and the CIS

masv on 7. October 2024

For the fourth Pandemics & Society Seminar of our Fall 2024 series we are pleased to welcome Umit Tleshova (Charles University). The seminar will be held on Thursday, 10 October at the normal time (1600 CEST). More information about our speaker and the presentation is below. You can sign up for email notifications about the seminar series, including the Zoom details, here.

Abstract

In the midst of the challenges brought about by COVID-19, it is crucial to evaluate excess mortality to effectively respond to public health needs. This research explores how mortality data has been censored in 18 countries that were previously under communist regimes until the 1990s, with a specific focus on the impact of democratization. The Democracy Index (DI) was used as a parameter, building upon previous studies that have linked democratic governance with mortality outcomes. By computing and analyzing excess mortality from January 2020 to the end of 2021, compared to the previous five years, we utilized common databases such as the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations World Population Prospects (UN WPP), and the World Mortality Dataset (WMD). We observed an interplay between DI and the undercount ratio of COVID-19 deaths within several independent states; however, our findings did not reveal any correlation between excess mortality and DI levels.

About the Speaker

Umit Tleshova is a PhD Student at the Department of Demography and Geodemography in the Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia. She conducted research on COVID-19 excess mortality data sources and their connection to political regimes among 17 countries in cooperation with Prof. Doc. RNDr. Dagmar Dzúrová and Dr. Klára Hulíková Tesárková. She obtained a Master’s degree in Business Administration from the University of Bolton, dedicating her field research to the socio-economic challenges faced by women in Nairobi, Kenya. She focuses on global population challenges and is currently dedicating her doctoral research to studying Covid-19 mortality data in countries with a communist history in the EU and CIS.

New paper: Drivers and barriers of seasonal vaccination uptake

masv on 2. October 2024

Drivers and barriers of seasonal influenza vaccination 2015/16 & 2019/20 to 2022/23 – a survey on why most Norwegians don’t get the flu vaccine | BMC Public Health (springer.com)

Background:

This study aimed to explore the reasons adults in the general population, influenza risk groups (RGs) and health care workers (HCWs) in Norway give for their vaccination choices and whether these reasons vary between groups or over time in order to further improve influenza vaccination coverage.

Methods:

Respondents of a nationally representative telephone survey conducted by Statistics Norway were asked “What was the most important reason why you did/did not get vaccinated?”. The question on influenza non-vaccination was included in 2016 and in 2020 to 2023 and the question on influenza vaccination in 2021 to 2023.

Results:

The study included 9 705 individuals aged 18–79 years. Influenza vaccination coverage in the RGs increased from 20.6% in 2016 to 63.1% in 2022, before a reduction to 58.3% in 2023. Common reasons for non-vaccination were similar in all groups. The most cited reasons were “no need” for the vaccine and “no specific reason”, followed by “not recommended/offered the vaccine”, “worry about side effects” and “vaccine refusal”. The most frequent reasons for vaccination among the general population and RGs were protection against influenza and belonging to a RG, while the most frequent responses among HCWs were being offered the vaccine at work/work in health care, followed by a desire for protection against influenza. Receiving a vaccine recommendation from a health professional was mentioned in all groups. We also observed that the proportion reporting “no need” for the vaccine decreased over time, especially among HCWs, and that the proportions reporting vaccine refusal and worry about side effects as reasons for non-vaccination were temporarily reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions:

The general population and RGs cite protection against influenza as their primary incentive for vaccination, while HCWs mainly refer to their professional role or workplace vaccination. For non-vaccination we see a similar pattern in all groups, with “no need” and “no specific reason” as the main reasons. Of note, worry about side effects and vaccine refusal is as frequent among HCWs as in other groups. Continued efforts to maintain and increase vaccine confidence are needed.