Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29170030›Full record

Trial reportThe lancet. HIV2018

Economic incentives for HIV testing by adolescents in Zimbabwe: a randomised controlled trial.

Katharina Kranzer, Victoria Simms, Tsitsi Bandason, Ethel Dauya, Grace McHugh, Shungu Munyati, Prosper Chonzi, Suba Dakshina, Hilda Mujuru, Helen A Weiss and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The lancet. HIV, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Katharina KranzerClinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; National and Supranational Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory, Leibniz Research Centre Borstel, Borstel, Germany. Electronic address: katharina.kranzer@lshtm.ac.uk.
Victoria SimmsMRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Tsitsi BandasonBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ethel DauyaBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Grace McHughBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Shungu MunyatiBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Prosper ChonziHarare City Health Department, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Suba DakshinaBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Hilda MujuruDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Helen A WeissMRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rashida A FerrandClinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Biomedical Research and Training Institute · ZWLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Zimbabwe · ZW

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHIV testing is the important entry point for HIV care and prevention service, but uptake of HIV testing and thus coverage of antiretroviral therapy are much lower in older children and adolescents than in adults. We investigated the effect of economic incentives provided to caregivers of children aged 8-17 years on uptake of HIV testing and counselling in Harare, Zimbabwe.

methodsThis randomised controlled trial was nested within a household HIV prevalence survey of children aged 8-17 years in Harare. Households with one or more survey participants whose HIV status was unknown were eligible to participate in the trial. Eligible households were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either receive no incentive, receive a fixed US$2 incentive, or participate in a lottery for $5 or $10 if the participant presented for HIV testing and counselling at a local primary health-care centre. The survey fieldworkers who enrolled participants were not blinded to trial arm allocation, but the statistician was blinded for analysis of outcome. The primary outcome was the proportion of households in which at least one child had an HIV test within 4 weeks of enrolment. HIV test uptake in the incentivised groups was compared with uptake in the non-incentivised group using logistic regression, adjusting for community and number of children as fixed effects and research assistant as a random effect. All analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201605001615280.

findingsBetween Aug 4, and Dec 18, 2015, 2050 eligible households were enrolled in the prevalence survey. 649 (32%) households were assigned no incentive, 740 (34%) households were assigned a $2 incentive, and 661 (32%) households were assigned to lottery participation. Children were unavailable in 148 households in the no-incentive group, 63 households in the $2 incentive group, and 81 households in the lottery group. 1688 households had at least one child with unknown HIV status and were enrolled into the trial. 22 households had no undiagnosed child, and one household refused consent. The primary outcome of HIV testing was assessed in 472 (28%) households in the no-incentive group, 654 (39%) households in the $2 incentive group, and 562 (33%) households in the lottery group. At least one child was HIV tested in 93 (20%) households in the no-incentive group, in 316 (48%) households in the $2 incentive group (adjusted odds ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·77-4·85; p<0·0001), and in 223 (40%) of 562 households in the lottery group (2·66, 2·00-3·55; p<0·0001). No adverse events were reported.

interpretationFixed incentives and lottery-based incentives increased the uptake of HIV testing by older children and adolescents, a key hard-to-reach population. This strategy would be sustainable in the context of vertical HIV infection as repeated testing would not be necessary until sexual debut.

fundingWellcome Trust.

Indexed as

AdolescentCaregiversChildCounselingFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMass ScreeningMotivationPoint-of-Care SystemsPrevalenceZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID29170030
PMCPMC5809636
OpenAlexW2768692582

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.