Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.

<h4>Background</h4>Tools 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 com...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Juan Carlos C Montoy, William H Dow, Beth C Kaplan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2018-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199833&type=printable
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850078800565501952
author Juan Carlos C Montoy
William H Dow
Beth C Kaplan
author_facet Juan Carlos C Montoy
William H Dow
Beth C Kaplan
author_sort Juan Carlos C Montoy
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Background</h4>Tools 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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We 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).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Small 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-48a0d438d77d412c9f9cfc5c0a72a6be
institution DOAJ
issn 1932-6203
language English
publishDate 2018-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj-art-48a0d438d77d412c9f9cfc5c0a72a6be2025-08-20T02:45:28ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032018-01-01137e019983310.1371/journal.pone.0199833Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.Juan Carlos C MontoyWilliam H DowBeth C Kaplan<h4>Background</h4>Tools 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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We 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).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Small 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.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199833&type=printable
spellingShingle Juan Carlos C Montoy
William H Dow
Beth C Kaplan
Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.
PLoS ONE
title Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.
title_full Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.
title_fullStr Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.
title_full_unstemmed Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.
title_short Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial.
title_sort cash incentives versus defaults for hiv testing a randomized clinical trial
url https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199833&type=printable
work_keys_str_mv AT juancarloscmontoy cashincentivesversusdefaultsforhivtestingarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT williamhdow cashincentivesversusdefaultsforhivtestingarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT bethckaplan cashincentivesversusdefaultsforhivtestingarandomizedclinicaltrial