Mandates without backlash: COVID-19 vaccine policies and the uptake of other vaccines

Sahar Yousef, Mohammad Abu-Zaineh (), Pierre Verger and Bruno Ventelou ()
Additional contact information
Mohammad Abu-Zaineh: AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Pierre Verger: ORS PACA - Observatoire régional de la santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur [Marseille]
Bruno Ventelou: AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Abstract This paper examines whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies generated spillover effects on the uptake of other vaccines. Using a global country-year panel, we combine COVID-19 vaccine mandate data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker with international vaccination coverage data for discretionary vaccines, including Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Influenza, and routine childhood vaccines, including Measles-containing, Rubella-containing, Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTP)-containing, Polio-containing, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)-containing, Hepatitis B-containing, Rotavirus-containing, and Pneumococcal-containing vaccines. The treatment is measured by a binary indicator that equals 1 if a country adopted any COVID-19 vaccine mandate. To address staggered mandate adoption and treatment effect heterogeneity across countries, we estimate dynamic average treatment effects for switching countries using the de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2026) staggered difference-in-differences estimator. Overall, we find no systematic evidence of declines in national coverage rates for other vaccines following COVID-19 vaccine mandate adoption. This is true for almost all vaccines studied. However, for some routine childhood vaccines, evidence of differential pre-treatment trends warrants caution in interpreting those estimates as definitive evidence of no causal effect. Power and sensitivity analyses show that, for seven routine outcomes, first-period declines can be excluded under moderate departures from parallel trends.

Date: 2026-10-06
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in NPJ vaccines, 2026, ⟨10.1038/s41541-026-01597-4⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05784070

DOI: 10.1038/s41541-026-01597-4

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().