Financial incentives and deposit contracts to promote HIV retesting in Uganda: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Frequent retesting for HIV among persons at increased risk of HIV infection is critical to early HIV diagnosis of persons and delivery of combination HIV prevention services. There are few evidence-based interventions for promoting frequent retesting for HIV. We sought to determine the effectiveness of financial incentives and deposit contracts in promoting quarterly HIV retesting among adults at increased risk of HIV. METHODS AND
FINDINGS: In peri-urban Ugandan communities from October to December 2018, we randomized HIV-negative adults with self-reported risk to 1 of 3 strategies to promote HIV retesting: (1) no incentive; (2) cash incentives (US$7) for retesting at 3 and 6 months (total US$14); or (3) deposit contracts: participants could voluntarily deposit US$6 at baseline and at 3 months that would be returned with interest (total US$7) upon retesting at 3 and 6 months (total US$14) or lost if participants failed to retest. The primary outcome was retesting for HIV at both 3 and 6 months. Of 1,482 persons screened for study eligibility following community-based recruitment, 524 participants were randomized to either no incentive (N = 180), incentives (N = 172), or deposit contracts (N = 172): median age was 25 years (IQR: 22 to 30), 44% were women, and median weekly income was US$13.60 (IQR: US$8.16 to US$21.76). Among participants randomized to deposit contracts, 24/172 (14%) made a baseline deposit, and 2/172 (1%) made a 3-month deposit. In intent-to-treat analyses, HIV retesting at both 3 and 6 months was significantly higher in the incentive arm (89/172 [52%]) than either the control arm (33/180 [18%], odds ratio (OR) 4.8, 95% CI: 3.0 to 7.7, p < 0.001) or the deposit contract arm (28/172 [16%], OR 5.5, 95% CI: 3.3 to 9.1, p < 0.001). Among those in the deposit contract arm who made a baseline deposit, 20/24 (83%) retested at 3 months; 11/24 (46%) retested at both 3 and 6 months. Among 282 participants who retested for HIV during the trial, three (1%; 95%CI: 0.2 to 3%) seroconverted: one in the incentive group and two in the control group. Study limitations include measurement of retesting at the clinic where baseline enrollment occurred, only offering clinic-based (rather than community-based) HIV retesting and lack of measurement of retesting after completion of the trial to evaluate sustained retesting behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering financial incentives to high-risk adults in Uganda resulted in significantly higher HIV retesting. Deposit contracts had low uptake and overall did not increase retesting. As part of efforts to increase early diagnosis of HIV among high-risk populations, strategic use of incentives to promote retesting should receive greater consideration by HIV programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02890459.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes

Introduction

Frequent retesting for HIV among persons at increased risk of infection is critical to HIV control efforts. With routine retesting and early HIV diagnosis, there are greater opportunities for HIV treatment with antiretroviral therapy (ART) to reduce HIV-associated morbidity and eliminate onward HIV transmission [1,2]. Similarly, as novel forms of prevention emerge, retesting offers the opportunity for early introduction to a growing number of prevention modalities [3].

The World Health Organization recommends annual retesting among sexually active adults living in settings with generalized HIV epidemics, with more frequent retesting (every 3 to 6 months) for people based on individual risk factors [4]. In Uganda, the Ministry of Health (MoH) recommends HIV retesting every 3 months for key populations [5]. Yet published data suggest that HIV retesting rates remain suboptimal in sub-Saharan Africa [6,7]. Relatively few adults meet the annual testing recommendation and health programs face challenges in encouraging people to retest [8,9]. Furthermore, there are few evidence-based interventions designed specifically to promote frequent retesting for HIV [10]. Low retesting uptake may be due, in part, to perceptions that retesting is unnecessary if a person continues to feel healthy and recently tested HIV negative [11].

Like some other health behaviors, HIV retesting may also be hindered by biases in human decision-making such as present bias, a tendency to place disproportional weight on near-term rather than long-term costs and benefits [12]. Studies have also found that scarcity of income may amplify people’s tendency to discount the future and worsen their ability to process health information [13,14], emphasizing the challenge programs face when promoting prevention behaviors with long-term benefits but few obvious short-term gains. Financial incentives, which have been effective in increasing one-time HIV testing and other health behaviors [15-17], offer one way to overcome present bias and the tendency to delay HIV testing. Since individuals may view retesting as a costly or inconvenient behavior of limited value, incentives may motivate individuals to seek regular HIV testing.

Behavioral economics research indicates that incentives can be more effective if they leverage loss aversion: people’s tendency to place greater psychological emphasis on monetary losses than monetary gains of similar value [18]. Deposit contracts do exactly this by enabling individuals to voluntarily commit to a health goal by making a deposit that is retrieved only if they achieve the goal [19]. Deposit contracts have largely been implemented in middle- and high-income countries [20-22]. Studies have found that although relatively few people make deposits, their effectiveness may be high among those who make deposits [20,23]. There have been few evaluations of deposit contracts in low-income countries, where poverty may limit people’s ability to make deposits. In a prior pilot study, however, we found that offering deposit contracts to promote retesting for HIV among at-risk adults in Uganda was feasible and acceptable [24].

In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of financial incentives and deposit contracts in promoting quarterly HIV retesting among HIV–negative persons at increased HIV risk in a peri-urban Ugandan community.

Methods

We conducted a 3-group randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of financial incentives and deposit contracts for quarterly retesting among HIV–negative adults at increased risk of HIV infection (NCT:02890459). The study was conducted in peri-urban towns in Ibanda District, southwestern Uganda, where adult HIV prevalence is 5.1% [25].

In September 2018, we held meetings with local health officials and community representatives to identify venues frequented by key populations, as defined by the Uganda MoH, including sex workers, transport workers, and people in serodifferent relationships [5]. As described elsewhere, the venues identified included bars associated with commercial sex work, businesses associated with transactional sex, and transportation hubs that included high-risk men [26]. Study staff visited these venues over 3 months and distributed 1,777 recruitment cards inviting adults in both English and Runyankole to come to a local government-run clinic the following day for a free health evaluation that included HIV testing, hypertension, diabetes, and malaria screening. The cards indicated that those who came for an evaluation would receive a one-time cash transfer of 10,000 Ugandan Shillings (USh) (US$2.70 in 2018) for reimbursement of travel expenses to reach the clinic.

Individuals who came for an evaluation were eligible for the study if they were aged 18 to 59 years, tested negative for HIV, and reported at least one of the following risk factors in the prior 12 months: (i) >1 partner; (ii) a known HIV–infected partner; (iii) a history of a sexually transmitted infection; or (iv) paid or received money or gifts in exchange for sex. We excluded participants who reported an intention to move away from the community for ≥4 of the 6 months following recruitment, were unwilling to retest for HIV in the future, or had tested for HIV ≥3 times in the past 12 months. Rapid HIV antibody testing was done using test kits and a serial testing algorithm based on Uganda MoH guidelines [5]. Similar HIV testing procedures were used when retesting participants during the study. Individuals who tested HIV–positive during recruitment were provided same-day linkage to care and ART. Distribution of recruitment cards continued until target enrollment was reached.

Procedures

Eligible adults who provided written informed consent were administered a baseline questionnaire (including questions about demographics, socioeconomic status and health, and sexual behavior, including HIV risk and testing behaviors) and randomized (1:1:1, by block randomization, stratified by sex, with block size = 9 and allocation sequence computer-generated prior to trial initiation; participants then selected a randomization “scratch off” card from 9 cards presented by staff, with replacement of each card taken with another card from the next block) to 3 groups: financial incentives, deposit contracts, or control. Participants in the financial incentives group were told they would receive a payment of 25,000 USh (approximately US$7 in 2018) in cash if they returned to the clinic and retested for HIV at 3 months, and the same amount if they retested at 6 months. For context, in 2018, annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was US$770 (US$2.11 per day) in Uganda [27]. Incentives for 6-month retesting were not conditional on having retested at 3 months (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Randomized controlled trial design and study interventions.

Participants in the deposit contract group were given the option to voluntarily make a baseline deposit of 20,000 Ush (approximately US$6) to commit to retesting at 3 months. The deposit was not mandatory, and participants could retest whether or not they made a deposit. Participants in this group were told that if they returned for retesting in 3 months, they would be returned the 20,000 Ush deposit and earn an additional 5,000 Ush (approximately US$1) in interest. Those retesting at 3 months (regardless of having made a deposit) were given the option of reentering a deposit contract with the same terms for retesting at 6 months. Staff informed participants that they would lose their deposit if they did not come for retesting during the subsequent, prespecified retesting period. We chose the amount of money (approximately US$7) offered for both the financial incentive and the deposit plus interest based on recommendations from a community advisory board.

Participants in the control group did not receive any incentives to retest for HIV. In all groups, study staff counseled participants on the benefits of regularly retesting for HIV. Study staff informed participants they had 1-month windows for retesting (3 to 4 months and 6 to 7 months post-randomization) and provided a one-time phone call reminder for all participants who had not tested 3 weeks into the 1-month retesting windows at 3 and 6 months. Study staff administered a brief follow-up questionnaire to participants who retested at 3 and 6 months to inquire about HIV risk behaviors, perception of HIV risk, and reasons for retesting.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was HIV retesting at the study-designated clinic at both 3 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included HIV retesting at 3 months, retesting at 6 months, retesting among those who made deposits, and seroconverting to HIV antibody positive (see Supporting information, S1 Text: CONSORT checklist; and S2 Text: Study protocol).

Statistical analyses

We estimated that with a sample size of 525 participants, there would be >80% power (alpha = 0.05, 2-sided) to detect a difference of ≥15% in retesting rates in each of the intervention groups compared to control. Descriptive statistics were used to present baseline characteristics, including means, standard deviations (SD), medians, and interquartile ranges (IQR). We compared the proportion of participants in each group who achieved the primary and secondary outcomes using 2-tailed χ2 tests. We also performed logistic regression analyses to report unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for retesting in the financial incentive arm versus control, deposit contracts versus control, and financial incentives versus deposit contracts. For retesting outcomes, we performed intent-to-treat analyses. In a secondary analysis, we used a standard instrumental variables approach (two-stage least squares) to estimate the causal effect of making a deposit on HIV retesting at 3 and 6 months [28]. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 15 (StataCorp).

Ethical statement

All participants provided written informed consent in their preferred language (English or Runyankole). The Makerere University School of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee, the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, and the University of California San Francisco Committee on Human Research approved the study protocol.

Results

From October to December 2018, 1,482 (83%) adults presented to local clinics with recruitment cards for evaluation, including HIV testing. Of 1,482 assessed for eligibility, 957 (65%) did not meet inclusion criteria: The most common reasons for ineligibility were baseline HIV–positive status (34% [334/957]), reporting none of the HIV risk factors at screening (34% [322/957]), and reporting frequent testing in the prior 12 months (21% [204/957]; Fig 2).

Fig 2

Participant flowchart indicating screening, randomization, and allocation to study group in a randomized controlled trial of financial incentives and deposit contracts to promote HIV retesting in Uganda.

Overall, 525 participants were randomized to financial incentives (N = 173), deposit contracts (N = 172), or no incentives (N = 180; Fig 2). One participant in the financial incentives group was determined to be ineligible post-randomization due to a false-negative baseline HIV test and was withdrawn. Participants’ median age was 25 years (IQR: 22 to 30), 231 (44%) were women, and median weekly income was US$13.60 (IQR: US$8.16 to US$21.76). Baseline demographic characteristics, weekly income, and self-reported HIV risk factors of participants did not differ significantly across study groups, apart from a higher proportion of the deposit contract group (8%) having completed more than secondary school than the incentive (2%) and control (3%; p = 0.03) groups (Table 1).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of participants by study group in a randomized trial of financial incentives and deposit contracts to promote HIV retesting.

Baseline Data	Control N (%)	Incentive N (%)	Deposit N (%)
Enrolled	180 (34)	172 (33)	172 (33)
Recruitment Site
Bars	75 (42)	79 (46)	73 (42)
Boda boda stagesa	83 (46)	79 (46)	82 (48)
Other	22 (12)	14 (8)	17 (10)
Median age (IQR)	25 (21–31)	25 (22–30)	25 (22–29)
Sex
Male	100 (56)	96 (56)	97 (56)
Female	80 (44)	76 (44)	75 (44)
Marital status
Married/cohabitating	80 (44)	80 (46)	77 (45)
Divorced/widowed	38 (21)	39 (23)	38 (22)
Never married	62 (34)	53 (31)	57 (33)
Highest school completed
≤Primary	172 (96)	164 (95)	153 (89)
Secondary	3 (2)	5 (3)	5 (3)
Tertiary	5 (3)	3 (2)	14 (8)
Occupation
Bar owner/worker	70 (39)	63 (37)	61 (35)
Boda/motorcycle driver	80 (44)	77 (45)	81 (47)
Other	30 (17)	32 (19)	30 (17)
Median weekly income in Ugandan Shillings [US$b], (IQR)	50,000 [US$13.76] (27,500–80,000)	50,000 [US$13.76] (25,000–80,000)	50,000 [US$13.76] (32,500–80,000)
Risk factors in prior 12 months, by self-reportc    >1 sexual partner    HIV+ sexual partner    STI diagnosis    Transactional sexd	172 (96%)19 (11%)55 (31%)111 (62%)	167 (97%)19 (11%)50 (29%)109 (63%)	168 (98%)19 (11%)55 (32%)113 (66%)

a “boda boda”: local term for motorcycle taxi.

b 2018 US Dollars.

c Not mutually exclusive risk factors (participants could report >1 risk factor).

d Either paid or received money/gifts in exchange for sex.

Among deposit contract group participants, 24/172 (14%) made a baseline deposit. The median age of these participants was higher than those who did not make a deposit (28 versus 24.5 years; p = 0.02). Median weekly income was higher among those who made baseline deposits (US$15.14) than who did not (US$13.76; p = 0.74); but this difference was not statistically significant. Two (1%) participants in the deposit contract group made a deposit at 3 months.

In intent-to-treat analyses, HIV retesting at both 3 and 6 months was significantly higher in the incentive group (52% [89/172]) than either the deposit contract group (16% [28/172], OR 5.5, 95% CI: 3.3 to 9.1, p < 0.001]) or control group (18% [33/180], OR 4.8, 95% CI: 3.0 to 7.7, p < 0.001; Fig 3). There was no significant difference between HIV retesting in the deposit contract and control groups (OR 0.87 retesting in deposit group, 95%CI: 0.5 to 1.5, p = 0.6). Overall, a higher proportion of participants in all groups retested at 3 months (267/524 [51%]) than 6 months (165/524 [31%]). Nonetheless, at both times, HIV retesting was significantly higher in the financial incentive group than the deposit contract and control groups (Fig 3).

Fig 3

The proportion of participants (with 95% confidence intervals) retesting for HIV at both 3- and 6-month post-randomization (primary outcome) and at the 3-month or 6-month time points, by study group in a randomized trial of financial incentives and deposit contracts vs control, to promote HIV retesting.

Within the deposit contract group, those who made a baseline deposit were significantly more likely to retest at both 3 and 6 months than those who did not make a deposit (11/24 [46%] versus 17/148 [11%], p < 0.001. Fig 4). Of those who made a baseline deposit, 20/24 (83%) returned for their deposits and retested for HIV at 3 months. Of the 2 participants who made a deposit at 3 months, both returned and retested at 6 months. In instrumental variables analysis, however, there was no statistically significant effect of making a baseline deposit on HIV retesting at 3 months or 6 months (S1 Table).

Fig 4

The proportion of participants (with 95% confidence intervals) retesting for HIV at 3 months, 6 months, and both 3 and 6 months within the deposit contract group, stratified by those who did or did not make a baseline deposit.

Among 282 participants who retested for HIV during the trial, three (1%; 95%CI: 0.2% to 3%) seroconverted; all tested HIV–positive at the 3-month visit. One participant who seroconverted was in the incentive group, and two were in the control group. All 3 participants were referred to HIV care and started ART on the day of testing HIV–positive. Trial activities for the final participants were completed on August 7, 2019.

Discussion

In this randomized controlled trial of financial incentives and deposit contracts to promote routine retesting for HIV among adults at increased risk of HIV in Uganda, providing financial incentives led to a 2.9-fold (52% versus 18%) increase in retesting compared to the control of counseling on HIV retesting. In contrast, deposit contracts did not increase retesting rates. Given the need for routine HIV retesting among the many persons at increased risk of HIV who have previously tested negative, results from this study have several implications. Most notably, financial incentives should receive strong consideration as a strategic approach to increase retesting in priority populations. Cost-effectiveness modeling could help inform costs and impacts of such an approach in different settings. Additionally, although deposit contracts were feasible and associated with very high HIV retesting among participants who made deposits, their overall effectiveness was limited by the low number of individuals willing to make a deposit. Our findings add to the evidence on the effectiveness of financial incentives in promoting health behaviors and provide new evidence on other interventions informed by behavioral economics such as deposit contracts.

Routine retesting in persons at increased risk of HIV infection is critical to early HIV diagnosis. If followed by prompt ART initiation and viral suppression, early diagnosis reduces morbidity and mortality [1] and can eliminate onward HIV transmission [2]. Routine resting also offers opportunities to increase access to the latest HIV prevention tools [29]. We were able to rapidly enroll members of key populations using a simple community-based recruitment strategy informed by community leader input, as demonstrated by the high HIV positivity among persons screened. Furthermore, we observed a high proportion of new HIV infections among participants who retested (1%) within a 6-month period, emphasizing the need for retesting high-risk populations. Notably, despite the risk behaviors reported by adults screened, few (14%) reported routine retesting as recommended by Ugandan guidelines.

Few studies have rigorously evaluated strategies to promote HIV retesting among key populations in sub-Saharan Africa [10]. In a trial of direct provision of several HIV self-tests at one time compared to facility-based testing or facility-based HIV self-testing (HIVST) among FSW in Uganda, provision of self-tests increased retesting over 4 months [30]. In another study in family planning clinics in Uganda, integrating HIV testing resulted in a significantly higher proportion of clinic patients testing at least 3 times over 1 year compared to clinics that did not integrate testing [31]. Lastly, a trial in Kenya that randomized 18- to 29-year-olds at risk for acute HIV to either a standard appointment or an appointment with a text and phone call reminder found that reminders significantly increased retesting 2 to 4 weeks following an initial negative HIV test [32]. Our results demonstrate that financial incentives are also an effective strategy to increase retesting among persons at increased risk of HIV.

Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of financial incentives in promoting one-time HIV testing and other health-related behaviors [15,16,21,33]. Our study adds to the literature by showing how ongoing use of incentives can promote repeated behaviors that tend to decline over time. For example, several studies have found large declines in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence and clinic engagement over time in sub-Saharan Africa [34-36]. Though our trial took place before widespread PrEP implementation in Uganda, effective strategies to promote retesting, if offered alongside the choice of PrEP and other emerging prevention strategies [3], could be used to engage those who may not consider themselves at risk for retesting and prevention services. Of note, we observed a decline in testing at 6 months across all groups, suggesting additional interventions may be needed for sustained behavior change in our study population.

Voluntary deposit contracts are a promising approach for promoting behavior change because they directly address present bias in decision-making and leverage loss aversion. They may also be less expensive to implement since participants’ put their own money at risk. Deposit contracts have been studied for behaviors such as weight loss and smoking cessation in high- and middle-income countries [20-23] but have not been implemented or evaluated, to our knowledge, in low-income settings where poverty may limit individuals’ ability to make deposits. We attempted to overcome this barrier by offering deposit contracts during the same visits in which participants had received half the deposit amount as compensation for coming to the clinic, thus making it easier for participants to make a deposit while still leveraging loss aversion. In a prior pilot study, we observed that a much higher proportion of participants (>90%) were willing to make baseline deposits when the deposit amount was equal to or less than the incentive for baseline testing [24]. In this study, we increased the deposit amount in order to require a larger precommitment of one’s own money and thus generate a greater sense of loss aversion. However, perhaps as a consequence, we observed relatively low baseline deposit contract uptake (14%). We suspect that had our deposit amount been lower, we would have observed higher baseline deposit contract uptake, but possibly also lower testing uptake among those making deposits. Our findings of low deposit contract uptake are similar to trials of deposit contracts for smoking cessation that have observed uptake ranging from 11% to 13.7% [20,23]. Importantly, although deposit contracts did not result in increased HIV retesting overall, participants who made deposits retested at extremely high levels, suggesting that for some, the decision to precommit to future testing may have been motivating. Alternatively, those with the greatest motivation to retest may have been more likely to make deposits. Future research could consider comparing differing deposit contract amounts and interest earned to increase participation while maintaining the potential of leveraging precommitment and loss aversion for behavior change.

Our study has limitations. First, we measured HIV retesting at clinics where baseline enrollment occurred: If participants opted to retest elsewhere, we may have undermeasured retesting. However, given the low rate of routine HIV retesting reported at baseline, we suspect this was unlikely to have impacted our results. Second, we only offered facility-based testing. Whether such strategies could increase retesting at out-of-facility venues is not clear. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, considering incentives for retesting, in combination with access to HIVST or non-facility-based testing venues, may allow programs to avoid losing ground on HIV retesting among at-risk persons and merits further evaluation. Lastly, we did not evaluate retesting beyond the 6-month trial period or post-trial retesting behavior, and whether incentives may have resulted in any habit formation with durable impact on retesting behavior, or conversely undermined intrinsic motivation to retest, after incentives were no longer available is unknown. Despite these limitations, our study provides rigorous evidence that financial incentives can significantly increase HIV retesting among high-risk adults.

In conclusion, this study tests novel interventions to promote HIV retesting and finds that financial incentives lead to large and significant increases in retesting. Deposit contracts, which leverage behavioral economics principles more strongly and are less costly than financial incentives, do not increase retesting rates overall even though they result in high retesting among those who precommit to retesting by making a deposit. As efforts to end HIV by 2030 increasingly rest on early HIV diagnosis among high-risk populations, strategic use of incentives to promote retesting should receive greater consideration by HIV programs.

CONSORT checklist for randomized controlled trials.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Study protocol.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Instrumental variable regression results to estimate causal effect of making a deposit on HIV retesting.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jan 2021

Dear Dr Chamie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A Randomized Trial of Financial Incentives and Deposit Contracts to Promote HIV Retesting" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external assessment.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by .

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for external assessment.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Richard Turner, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org

2 Mar 2021

Dear Dr. Chamie,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A Randomized Trial of Financial Incentives and Deposit Contracts to Promote HIV Retesting" (PMEDICINE-D-21-00078R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by an academic editor with relevant expertise and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to invite you to submit a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments fully. You will appreciate that we cannot make a decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we expect to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript by Mar 23 2021 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and we look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Richard Turner, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

Please adapt your title so that the study descriptor ("a randomized trial" falls after a colon); and include the country name.

In the abstract and results section, please quote effect sizes and 95% CI for the primary endpoint findings.

Please quote study dates in your abstract.

Please add a few final sentence to the "Methods and findings" subsection of your abstract, beginning "Study limitations include ..." or similar and quoting 2-3 of the study's main limitations.

After the abstract, we will need to ask you to add a new and accessible "Author summary" section in non-identical prose. You may find it helpful to consult one or two recent research papers published in PLOS Medicine to get a sense of the preferred style.

Please refer to figure 2 as the "Participant flowchart" or similar, rather than "CONSORT diagram".

We believe that CONSORT discourages statistical tests at baseline in randomized trials, and ask that you remove these from table 1.

At line 261 and any other instances in the paper, please avoid "nearly three-fold", instead quoting actual numbers.

Throughout the text, please style reference call-outs as follows: "... HIV transmission [1,2]. Similarly ... " (noting the absence of spaces within the square brackets).

Please remove the information on study funding from the end of the main text. In the event of publication, this information will appear in the article metadata, via entries in the submission form.

In the reference list, please ensure that all references have full access details, e.g., reference 15.

Please ensure that journal names are abbreviated consistently.

Please add a completed CONSORT checklist, labelled "S1_CONSORT_Checklist" or similar and referred to as such in the Methods section. In the checklist, please refer to individual items by section (e.g., "Methods") and paragraph number rather than by page or line numbers, as the latter generally change in the event of publication.

Please include the study protocol as a supplementary document, referred to in your Methods section, unless this is published.

Comments from the reviewers:

*** Reviewer #1:

[See attachment]

Michael Dewey

*** Reviewer #2:

This is an interesting, well conducted and well reported study.

My main comment is about the fact that the take-up for the deposit contract appeared to be quite low. I was not necessarily surprised by this finding given the low average income in the study setting and therefore the predictably low ability to save. I am surprised that this did not appear as a major constraint for the feasibility of study. Specifically, I would have liked the authors to compare their finding in their pilot study (Chamie G, Ndyabakira A, Marson KG, Emperador DM, Kamya MR, Havlir DV, et al. A pilot randomized trial of incentive strategies to promote HIV retesting in rural Uganda. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233600.) with their findings in the present study. Did they manage to get higher uptake of the deposit contracts in the pilot study? Apparently yes, since in the pilot study 93% made deposits, but only 14% in the current study. Why and what might explain the differences in uptake between the pilot study and current study? This seems to be a key point to discuss.

Given the low uptake for the deposit contracts in the current study, very little can be concluded about the comparison between cash incentives and deposit contracts, which, I suppose, was the main objective of the study. The remaining result is about the effectiveness of the cash incentives, but that effectiveness has already been established (see Lee R, Cui RR, Muessig KE, Thirumurthy H, Tucker JD. Incentivizing HIV/STI Testing: A Systematic Review of the Literature. AIDS Behav. 2013.)

Minor comment:

I am surprised not to have found one of the first study testing incentives for HIV testing in the reference list:

Thornton RL. The Demand for, and Impact of, Learning HIV Status. Am Econ Rev. 2008;98(5):1829-63.

*** Reviewer #3:

A Randomized Trial of Financial Incentives and Deposit Contracts to Promote HIV Retesting

Manuscript Number: PMEDICINE-D-21-00078R1

This manuscript reports the results of a three-group randomized, controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of 1) financial incentives and 2) deposit contracts vs. 3) control in achieving HIV re-testing at both 3 and 6 months post-randomization among people at high risk for contracting HIV in southwestern Uganda. Eligible individuals were those who presented for an evaluation and who were 18-59 years of age, tested negative for HIV, and reported at least one of the following risk factors in the prior 12 months: 1) >1 partner; 2) a known HIV-infected partner; 3) a history of a sexually transmitted infection; or 4) paid or received money or gifts in exchange for sex. Self-report (at screening/baseline) and HIV testing data (screening/baseline and follow-up) were collected over a ~6-month observation period.

Strengths of this study are its large sample size, three-arm randomized and controlled design, rapid recruitment period, and high-risk target population. The paper is well organized, clearly written and will add to the body of literature on the effectiveness of financial incentives and deposit contracts. This reviewer found no major issues and only a handful of minor issues (described below) that authors may consider addressing.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues:

1) Lines 134-135: Consider including a brief description of measures assessed via the baseline questionnaire. If not feasible due to space limitations, consider referring readers to Table 1 for a list of the measures. Also, consider clarifying whether any follow-up questionnaire was administered at 3- and 6-month follow-ups.

2) Line 147: Figure 1 refers to "cash transfer", yet this term is not addressed within the text. Does this payment correspond to the "one-time reimbursement" of $2.70 paid to individuals who completed the screening/baseline evaluation (as mentioned in line 118)?

a) If yes, then I recommend using parallel terminology and $ amount in the text and figure to add clarity.

b) If no, then I recommend the term, "cash transfer", be briefly defined or described within the text prior to being used in the figure.

3) Line 188: The recruitment period is clearly describing. For clarity and context, consider clearly stating the full study observation period and/or "stop date" (last date on which data were collected for last randomized participant).

4) Lines 265-266: The phrase, "Further cost-effectiveness modeling…" sounds like some cost-effectiveness modeling may already have been performed and additional modeling is recommended. Is this the case?

a) If yes, please briefly present results of any cost-effectiveness modeling already performed.

b) If no, please eliminate "Further" and start the sentence with "Cost-effectiveness modeling…" to avoid confusion.

5) Line 332: Consider addressing the short observation period (only 6 months) as a study limitation, particularly because lines 66-67 indicate that Uganda Ministry of Health recommends HIV retesting every 3 months for "key populations" which (presumably) includes the high-risk individuals recruited for this study.

***

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Submitted filename: chamie.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

21 Mar 2021

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PlosMed IBIS 21Mar2021.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Apr 2021

Dear Dr. Chamie,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Financial Incentives and Deposit Contracts to Promote HIV Retesting in Uganda: a randomized trial" (PMEDICINE-D-21-00078R2) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with our academic editor and it was also seen again by three reviewers. I am pleased to tell you that, provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with, we expect to be able to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and we look forward to receiving the revised manuscript shortly.

Sincerely,

Richard Turner, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

Please finalize the arrangements for data deposition and release.

Please add a sentence, say, at line 51 to quote the number, and distribution by study arm, of seroconversions.

Throughout the text, please move reference call-outs before punctuation (e.g., " ... HIV transmission [1,2].").

In the reference list, please abbreviate journal names consistently (e.g., "PLoS Med.").

Comments from Reviewers:

***Reviewer #1:

The authors have addressed my points and have clearer up the point about the randomisation.

Michael Dewey

*** Reviewer #2:

Thank you for your responses to my comments.

I remain convinced of the relevance of my second comment:

"Given the low uptake for the deposit contracts in the current study, very little can be concluded

about the comparison between cash incentives and deposit contracts, which, I suppose, was the

main objective of the study. The remaining result is about the effectiveness of the cash

incentives, but that effectiveness has already been established (see Lee R, Cui RR, Muessig KE,

Thirumurthy H, Tucker JD. Incentivizing HIV/STI Testing: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

AIDS Behav. 2013.) "

Your answer is technically correct but does not convince me that the results from this randomized control trial are sufficiently novel and important to be published in PLoS Medicine.

*** Reviewer #3:

The "minor issues" that I raised were satisfactorily addressed in this revision.

***

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

14 Apr 2021

Submitted filename: Response to PLoS Med Editors v12Apr2021.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Apr 2021

Dear Dr Chamie,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Dr Barnabas, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "Financial Incentives and Deposit Contracts to Promote HIV Retesting in Uganda: a randomized trial" (PMEDICINE-D-21-00078R3) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper.

Sincerely,

Richard Turner, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org