Trial reportPloS one2018
Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Impact of Behavioural Economics-Informed Interventions on the Care Cascade for Sexually Transmitted and Blood-Borne Infections: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Behavioural Economics Informed Interventions for the Prevention, Screening, and Antiretroviral Treatment of HIV Infection: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.AIDS and behavior · 2023Pooled it
- Demand creation for HIV testing services: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Incentive-Based Sexually Transmitted and Blood-Borne Infections Screening in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2022Pooled it
- The Utilisation of Payment Models Across the HIV Continuum of Care: Systematic Review of Evidence.AIDS and behavior · 2021Pooled it
- Suboptimal Recent and Regular HIV Testing Among Black Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States: Implications From a Meta-Analysis.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019Pooled it
- Impact of family networks on uptake of health interventions: evidence from a community-randomized control trial aimed at increasing HIV testing in South Africa.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2023Trial
- Using Incentives and Nudging to Improve Non-Targeted HIV Testing in Ecuador: A Randomized Trial.AIDS and behavior · 2021Trial
- Incentive-based interventions to improve HIV prevention and care continuum: a global systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Epidemiological yield and cost-effectiveness of non-targeted community HIV screening in a low-prevalence district: a prospective quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Costs analysis of integrating group interpersonal therapy into HIV care services in Senegal.International journal of mental health systems · 2025Article
- Choice Architecture in Opioid Safety Alerting.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023Article
- Financing Benefits and Barriers to Routine HIV Screening in Clinical Settings in the United States: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Using Behavioral Economics to Support PrEP Adherence for HIV Prevention.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2022Review
- Applying Behavioural Insights to HIV Prevention and Management: a Scoping Review.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Financial Incentives for Pediatric HIV Testing (FIT): Caregiver Insights on Incentive Mechanisms, Focus Populations, and Acceptability for Programmatic Scale Up.AIDS and behavior · 2021Article
- iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2020Article
- Using Behavioral Economics to Promote HIV Prevention for Key Populations.Journal of AIDS & clinical research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTools from behavioral economics have been shown to improve health-related behaviors, but the relative efficacy and additive effects of different types of interventions are not well established. We tested the influence of small cash incentives, defaults, and both in combination on increasing patient HIV test acceptance. METHODS AND
findingsWe conducted a randomized clinical trial among patients aged 13-64 receiving care in an urban emergency department. Patients were cross-randomized to $0, $1, $5, and $10 incentives, and to opt-in, active-choice, and opt-out test defaults. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who accepted an HIV test. 4,831 of 8,715 patients accepted an HIV test (55.4%). Those offered no monetary incentive accepted 51.6% of test offers. The $1 treatment did not increase test acceptance (increase 1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 3.9); the $5 and $10 treatments increased test acceptance rates by 10.5 and 15 percentage points, respectively (95% CI 7.5 to 13.4 and 11.8 to 18.1). Compared to opt-in testing, active-choice testing increased test acceptance by 11.5% (95% CI 9.0 to 14.0), and opt-out testing increased acceptance by 23.9 percentage points (95% CI 21.4 to 26.4).
conclusionsSmall incentives and defaults can both increase patient HIV test acceptance, though when used in combination their effects were less than additive. These tools from behavioral economics should be considered by clinicians and policymakers. How patient groups respond to monetary incentives and/or defaults deserves further investigation for this and other health behaviors.
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.