Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27404009›Full record

Trial reportJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2016

A Randomized Evaluation of a Demand Creation Lottery for Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Among Adults in Tanzania.

Eva Bazant, Hally Mahler, Michael Machaku, Ruth Lemwayi, Yusuph Kulindwa, Jackson Gisenge Lija, Baraka Mpora, Denice Ochola, Supriya Sarkar, Emma Williams and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Eva Bazant*Jhpiego, Baltimore, MD; †FHI 360, Washington, DC (formerly Jhpiego, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania); ‡Jhpiego, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; §Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, the Elderly and Children, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; ‖Jhpiego/Consultant, Baltimore, MD; and ¶Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Laney Graduate School, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Hally Mahler
Michael Machaku
Ruth Lemwayi
Yusuph Kulindwa
Jackson Gisenge Lija
Baraka Mpora
Denice Ochola
Supriya Sarkar
Emma Williams
Marya Plotkin
James Juma

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUptake of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) among adult men has fallen short of targets in Tanzania. We evaluated a smartphone raffle intervention designed to increase VMMC uptake in three regions.

methodsAmong 7 matched pairs of health facilities, 1 in each pair was randomly assigned to the intervention, consisting of a weekly smartphone raffle for clients returning for follow-up and monthly raffle for peer promoters and providers. VMMC records of clients aged 20 and older were analyzed over three months, with the number performed compared with the same months in the previous year. In multivariable models, the intervention's effect on number of VMMCs was adjusted for client factors and clustering. Focus groups with clients and peer promoters explored preferences for VMMC incentives.

resultsVMMCs increased 47% and 8% in the intervention and control groups, respectively; however, the changes were not significantly different from one another. In the Iringa region subanalysis, VMMCs in the intervention group increased 336% (exponentiated coefficient of 3.36, 95% CI: 1.14 to 9.90; P = 0.028), after controlling for facility pair, percentage of clients ≥ age 30, and percentage testing HIV positive; the control group had a more modest 63% significant increase (exponentiated coefficient 1.63, 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.26; P = 0.003). The changes were not significantly different. Focus group respondents expressed mixed opinions about smartphone raffles; some favored smaller cash incentive or transportation reimbursement. IMPLICATIONS: A smartphone raffle might increase VMMC uptake in some settings by helping late adopters move from intention to action; however, there is no recommendation for this intervention more generally.

Indexed as

Health Services Needs and DemandSmartphoneAdolescentAdultCircumcision, MaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleTanzaniaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27404009
PMCPMC5054970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.