IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qub/charms/1605.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Gifts Increase Consent to Home-based HIV Testing? A Difference-in-Differences Study in Rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Mark E. McGovern
  • Kobus Herbst
  • Frank Tanser
  • Tinofa Mutevedzi
  • David Canning
  • Dickman Gareta
  • Deenan Pillay
  • Till Bärnighausen

Abstract

Despite the importance of HIV testing for controlling the HIV epidemic, testing rates remain low. Efforts to scale up testing coverage and frequency in hard-to-reach and at-risk populations commonly focus on home-based HIV testing. This study evaluates the effect of a gift (a US $5 food voucher for families) on consent rates for home-based HIV testing. We use data on 18,478 individuals (6,418 men and 12,060 women) who were successfully contacted to participate in the 2009 and 2010 population-based HIV surveillance carried out by the Wellcome Trust's Africa Health Research Institute in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Of 18,478 potential participants contacted in both years, 35% (6,518) consented to test in 2009, and 41% (7,533) consented to test in 2010. Our quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach controls for unobserved confounding in estimating the causal effect of the intervention on HIV-testing consent rates. Allocation of the gift to a family in 2010 increased the probability of family members consenting to test in the same year by 25 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI) 21--30 percentage points; P less than 0.001]. The intervention effect persisted, slightly attenuated, in the year following the intervention (2011). In HIV hyperendemic settings, a gift can be highly effective at increasing consent rates for home-based HIV testing. Given the importance of HIV testing for treatment uptake and individual health, as well as for HIV treatment-as-prevention strategies and for monitoring the population impact of the HIV response, gifts should be considered as a supportive intervention for HIV-testing initiatives where consent rates have been low.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark E. McGovern & Kobus Herbst & Frank Tanser & Tinofa Mutevedzi & David Canning & Dickman Gareta & Deenan Pillay & Till Bärnighausen, 2016. "Do Gifts Increase Consent to Home-based HIV Testing? A Difference-in-Differences Study in Rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa," CHaRMS Working Papers 16-05, Centre for HeAlth Research at the Management School (CHaRMS).
  • Handle: RePEc:qub:charms:1605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://ftp.qub.ac.uk/pub/users/repec/qub/charms/MS_WPS_CHARMS_16_05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uri Gneezy & Stephan Meier & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 191-210, Fall.
    2. McGovern, Mark E. & Bärnighausen, Till & Giampiero Marra & Rosalba Radice, 2015. "On the Assumption of Bivariate Normality in Selection Models: A Copula Approach Applied to Estimating HIV Prevalence," Working Paper 199101, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    3. Posner, Richard A, 1980. "A Theory of Primitive Society, with Special Reference to Law," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 1-53, April.
    4. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 431-497, March.
    5. William Greene, 2004. "The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 98-119, June.
    6. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias & Costas Meghir & John Van Reenen, 2004. "Evaluating the Employment Impact of a Mandatory Job Search Program," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(4), pages 569-606, June.
    7. Mark Gersovitz, 2011. "HIV Testing: Principles and Practice," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 26(1), pages 1-41, February.
    8. Sarah Baird & Craig McIntosh & Berk Özler, 2011. "Cash or Condition? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1709-1753.
    9. Wendy Janssens & Jacques Gaag & Tobias Rinke de Wit & Zlata Tanović, 2014. "Refusal Bias in the Estimation of HIV Prevalence," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(3), pages 1131-1157, June.
    10. Rebecca L. Thornton, 2008. "The Demand for, and Impact of, Learning HIV Status," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1829-1863, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Slawa Rokicki & Jessica Cohen & Gunther Fink & Joshua Salomon & Mary Beth Landrum, 2018. "Inference with difference-in-differences with a small number of groups: a review, simulation study and empirical application using SHARE data," CHaRMS Working Papers 18-01, Centre for HeAlth Research at the Management School (CHaRMS).
    2. Mark McGovern & David Canning & Till Bärnighausen, 2018. "Accounting for Non-Response Bias using Participation Incentives and Survey Design," CHaRMS Working Papers 18-02, Centre for HeAlth Research at the Management School (CHaRMS).
    3. repec:eee:ecolet:v:171:y:2018:i:c:p:239-244 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gift-voucher Intervention; Incentives; Difference-in-Differences; Home-based HIV Testing; South Africa;

    JEL classification:

    • J10 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - General
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qub:charms:1605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark McGovern). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dequbuk.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.