OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of alternative incentive-based interventions to promote HIV testing among men. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: We enumerated four Ugandan parishes and enrolled men at least 18 years. Participants were randomized to six groups that received incentives of varying type and amount for HIV testing at a 13-day community health campaign. Incentive types were: gain-framed (control): participants were told they would receive a prize for testing; loss-framed: participants were told they had won a prize, shown several prizes, asked to select one, then told they would lose the prize if they did not test; lotteries: those who tested had a chance to win larger prizes. Each incentive type had a low and high amount (∼US$1 and US$5/participant). The primary outcome was HIV-testing uptake at the community health campaign. RESULTS:Of 2532 participants, 1924 (76%) tested for HIV; 7.6% of those tested were HIV-positive. There was no significant difference in testing uptake in the two lottery groups (78%; P = 0.076) or two loss-framed groups (77%; P = 0.235) vs. two gain-framed groups (74%). Across incentive types, testing did not differ significantly in high-cost (76%) vs. low-cost (75%; P = 0.416) groups. Within low-cost groups, testing uptake was significantly higher in the lottery (80%) vs. gain-framed (72%; P = 0.009) group. CONCLUSION: Overall, neither offering incentives via lotteries nor framing incentives as losses resulted in significant increases in HIV testing compared with standard gain-framed incentives. However, when offering low-cost incentives to promote HIV testing, providing lottery-based rewards may be a better strategy than gain-framed incentives.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of alternative incentive-based interventions to promote HIV testing among men. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: We enumerated four Ugandan parishes and enrolled men at least 18 years. Participants were randomized to six groups that received incentives of varying type and amount for HIV testing at a 13-day community health campaign. Incentive types were: gain-framed (control): participants were told they would receive a prize for testing; loss-framed: participants were told they had won a prize, shown several prizes, asked to select one, then told they would lose the prize if they did not test; lotteries: those who tested had a chance to win larger prizes. Each incentive type had a low and high amount (∼US$1 and US$5/participant). The primary outcome was HIV-testing uptake at the community health campaign. RESULTS: Of 2532 participants, 1924 (76%) tested for HIV; 7.6% of those tested were HIV-positive. There was no significant difference in testing uptake in the two lottery groups (78%; P = 0.076) or two loss-framed groups (77%; P = 0.235) vs. two gain-framed groups (74%). Across incentive types, testing did not differ significantly in high-cost (76%) vs. low-cost (75%; P = 0.416) groups. Within low-cost groups, testing uptake was significantly higher in the lottery (80%) vs. gain-framed (72%; P = 0.009) group. CONCLUSION: Overall, neither offering incentives via lotteries nor framing incentives as losses resulted in significant increases in HIV testing compared with standard gain-framed incentives. However, when offering low-cost incentives to promote HIV testing, providing lottery-based rewards may be a better strategy than gain-framed incentives.
Authors: Eric Lugada; Debra Millar; John Haskew; Mark Grabowsky; Navneet Garg; Mikkel Vestergaard; James G Kahn; James G Khan; James Kahn; Nicholas Muraguri; Jonathan Mermin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gabriel Chamie; Tamara D Clark; Jane Kabami; Kevin Kadede; Emmanuel Ssemmondo; Rachel Steinfeld; Geoff Lavoy; Dalsone Kwarisiima; Norton Sang; Vivek Jain; Harsha Thirumurthy; Teri Liegler; Laura B Balzer; Maya L Petersen; Craig R Cohen; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Moses R Kamya; Diane V Havlir; Edwin D Charlebois Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Tamsin K Phillips; Kemberlee Bonnet; Landon Myer; Sizakele Buthelezi; Zanele Rini; Jean Bassett; David Schlundt; Kate Clouse Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2019-09
Authors: Carol S Camlin; Kara Marson; Alex Ndyabakira; Monica Getahun; Devy Emperador; Ambrose Byamukama; Dalsone Kwarisiima; Harsha Thirumurthy; Gabriel Chamie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Ivy Mannoh; Danielle Amundsen; Gnilane Turpin; Carrie E Lyons; Nikita Viswasam; Elizabeth Hahn; Sofia Ryan; Stefan Baral; Bhakti Hansoti Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-11-19
Authors: Nolan M Kavanagh; Elisabeth M Schaffer; Alex Ndyabakira; Kara Marson; Diane V Havlir; Moses R Kamya; Dalsone Kwarisiima; Gabriel Chamie; Harsha Thirumurthy Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2020-11
Authors: Irene N Njuguna; Anjuli D Wagner; Jillian Neary; Vincent O Omondi; Verlinda A Otieno; Anita Orimba; Cyrus Mugo; Joseph B Babigumira; Carol Levin; Barbra A Richardson; Elizabeth Maleche-Obimbo; Dalton C Wamalwa; Grace John-Stewart; Jennifer Slyker Journal: AIDS Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 4.632
Authors: Alex Ndyabakira; Monica Getahun; Ambrose Byamukama; Devy Emperador; Stella Kabageni; Kara Marson; Dalsone Kwarisiima; Gabriel Chamie; Harsha Thirumurthy; Diane Havlir; Moses R Kamya; Carol S Camlin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Connie L Celum; Katherine Gill; Jennifer F Morton; Gabrielle Stein; Laura Myers; Katherine K Thomas; Margaret McConnell; Ariane van der Straten; Jared M Baeten; Menna Duyver; Eve Mendel; Keshani Naidoo; Jacqui Dallimore; Lubbe Wiesner; Linda-Gail Bekker Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 5.396