ArticleBMC public health2012
Should young people be paid for getting tested? A national comparative study to evaluate patient financial incentives for chlamydia screening.
Article in BMC public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic incentives for HIV testing by adolescents in Zimbabwe: a randomised controlled trial.The lancet. HIV · 2018Trial
- Healthcare providers' views on the acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2014Trial
- The effect of financial incentives on chlamydia testing rates: evidence from a randomized experiment.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2014Trial
- Applying Behavioral Economics to Improve Adolescent and Young Adult Health: A Developmentally-Sensitive Approach.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2021Review
- Acceptability of HIV testing for men attending televised football venues in Uganda.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Interventions to Improve Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening in Clinic-Based Settings.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2016Review
- Vouchers versus Lotteries: What works best in promoting Chlamydia screening? A cluster randomised controlled trial.Applied economic perspectives and policy · 2014Article
- Do sexual health campaigns work? An outcome evaluation of a media campaign to increase chlamydia testing among young people aged 15-24 in England.BMC public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient financial incentives ("incentives") have been widely used to promote chlamydia screening uptake amongst 15-24 year olds in England, but there is scarce evidence of their effectiveness. The objectives of the study were to describe incentives used to promote chlamydia screening in Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in England and to evaluate their impact on coverage and positivity rate.
methodsPCTs that had used incentives between 1/1/2007 and 30/6/2009 (exposed) were matched by socio-demographic profile and initial screening coverage with PCTs that had not (unexposed). For each PCT, percentage point change in chlamydia screening coverage and positivity for the period before and during the incentive was calculated. Differences in average change of coverage and positivity rate between exposed and unexposed PCTs were compared using linear regression to adjust for matching and potential confounders.
resultsIncentives had a significant effect in increasing average coverage in exposed PCTs (0.43%, CI 0.04%-0.82%). The effect for voucher schemes (2.35%) was larger than for prize draws (0.16%). The difference was greater in females (0.73%) than males (0.14%). The effect on positivity rates was not significant (0.07%, CI -1.53% to 1.67%).
conclusionsVouchers, but not prize draws, led to a small absolute but large relative increase in chlamydia screening coverage. Incentives increased coverage more in females than males but had no impact on reported positivity rates. These findings support recommendations not to use prize draws to promote chlamydia screening and contribute to the evidence base of the operational effectiveness of using patient incentives in encouraging public health action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.