| Literature DB >> 31426869 |
Tiange P Zhang1,2, Fan Yang1, Weiming Tang1,3,4, Marcus Alexander5, Laura Forastiere5, Navin Kumar5, Katherine Li6, Fei Zou7, Ligang Yang4, Guodong Mi8, Yehua Wang1, Wenting Huang1, Amy Lee1, Weizan Zhu9, Peter Vickerman10, Dan Wu1, Bin Yang4, Nicholas A Christakis5, Joseph D Tucker11,12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gonorrhea and chlamydia testing rates are poor among Chinese men who have sex with men (MSM). A quasi-experimental study suggested that a pay-it-forward strategy increased dual gonorrhea/chlamydia testing among MSM. Pay-it-forward offers an individual a gift (e.g., a free test) and then asks the same person if they would like to give a gift to another person. This article reports the protocol of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate dual gonorrhea/chlamydia test uptake and other outcomes among MSM in three arms - a pay-it-forward arm, a pay-what-you-want arm, and a standard of care arm.Entities:
Keywords: China; Gonorrhoea and chlamydia testing; Integrated HIV testing; Men who have sex with men; Pay-it-forward; Randomized controlled trial
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31426869 PMCID: PMC6700988 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-019-0581-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Fig. 1Schematic of three trial arms. The block diagrams describe the implementation steps for each arm
Fig. 2Schematic of cluster randomization procedure and sample allocation. This schematic diagram illustrates the cluster randomization procedure, average volume of testers who visit the study site for HIV tests during a typical week, and allocation. There are 30 clusters and 300 total participants, which satisfy the sample size. The sequence shown is for illustration and is not the actual allocation sequence
Sample size calculations
| Pay-it-forward and standard of care | ICC | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Proportion in control group | 0.06 | 0.06 | |
| Superiority margin | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| Proportion in intervention group assuming H0 | 0.26 | 0.26 | |
| Proportion in intervention group assuming H1 | 0.54 | 0.54 | |
| Difference at which power is calculated | 0.48 | 0.48 | |
| Number of people per cluster | 10 | 10 | |
| Alpha | 0.05 | 0.05 | |
| Power | 0.8 | 0.8 | |
| Total sample size per arm | 30 | 40 | |
| Number of clusters per arm | 3 | 4 | |
| Pay-what-you-want and standard of care | ICC | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Proportion in control group | 0.06 | 0.06 | |
| Superiority margin | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| Proportion in intervention group assuming H0 | 0.26 | 0.26 | |
| Proportion in intervention group assuming H1 | 0.42 | 0.42 | |
| Difference at which power is calculated | 0.36 | 0.36 | |
| Number of people per cluster | 10 | 10 | |
| Alpha | 0.05 | 0.05 | |
| Power | 0.8 | 0.8 | |
| Total sample size per arm | 80 | 110 | |
| Number of clusters per arm | 8 | 11 |
ICC Intra-class correlation
Two piloted arms and the historical standard of care
| Arms | Standard of carea | Pay-it-forward | Pay-what-you-want |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days piloted | 52 | 4 | 5 |
| Number of MSM offered intervention | 205 | 17 | 26 |
| GC/CT test uptake | 12 (6%) | 15 (88%) | 11 (42%) |
| Number of MSM who contributed any amount | NA | 15 (100%) | 10 (91%) |
| Total contribution amount | NA | RMB 833.88 (USD 125.08) | RMB 465.99 (USD 69.90) |
| Average contribution Amount per tester | NA | RMB 55.59 (USD 8.34) | RMB 42.36 (USD 6.35) |
| Gonorrhea positive | NA | 0 | 0 |
| Chlamydia positive | NA | 2 | 1 |
MSM Men who have sex with men
GC/CT Gonorrhea and chlamydia
NA Not applicable
aHistorical standard of care data from a quasi-experimental study between March 11th and May 1st, 2018