Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33742307›Full record

Trial reportAIDS and behavior2021

Using Incentives and Nudging to Improve Non-Targeted HIV Testing in Ecuador: A Randomized Trial.

Mario Macis, Michelle Grunauer, Erika Gutierrez, Ricardo Izurieta, Phillip Phan, Miguel Reina Ortiz, Carlos Rosas, Enrique Teran

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in AIDS and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Healthcare Appointments as Commitment Devices.Economic journal (London, England) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mario MacisJohns Hopkins Carey Business School, 100 International Dr, Baltimore, MD, USA. mmacis@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6635-2752
Michelle GrunauerColegio de Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5821-7603
Erika GutierrezColegio de Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador.
Ricardo IzurietaCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1256-5896
Phillip PhanJohns Hopkins Carey Business School, 100 International Dr, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1366-1604
Miguel Reina OrtizCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3309-6881
Carlos RosasColegio de Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador.
Enrique TeranColegio de Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6979-5655
Universidad San Francisco de Quito · ECJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

Virology CoreP30AI027767 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI Latesha Ellen Elopre · 1988 to 2026
$84.1M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027767
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Under-detection of HIV/AIDS still burdens many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our randomized trial investigated the effects of financial incentives and a behavioral nudge to induce HIV testing and learning HIV status in Ecuador. In the control group, 12.2% of participants agreed to testing, and 5.3% learned results. A financial incentive paid at testing increased the fraction of participants tested by 50.1 percentage points (95% CI 38.8 to 61.4) and the fraction who learned their status by 8.9 percentage points (95% CI 5.3 to 12.5); the nudge had no effect. The HIV-positive rate was 1.2% in the control group, and incentives prompted a 4.7 percentage point (95% CI 0.5 to 8.9) higher proportion of HIV-positive detection. Incentives also induced earlier testing, suggesting reduced procrastination. This suggests that information with appropriately timed small financial incentives can improve HIV testing and detection of new cases in the general population in LMIC settings.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsMotivationEcuadorHIV TestingHumansBehavioral nudgesCost analysisEcuadorEthnic minorityHIVIncentivesTesting

Identifiers

PMID33742307
OpenAlexW3139336104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.