Planning prompts to promote uptake of HIV services among men

A randomised trial in rural Uganda

Bibliographic Data

ID21880792
AuthorsNolan M Kavanagh (0000-0002-5701-0993, University of Pennsylvania), Elisabeth M Schaffer (0000-0001-5193-7344, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus), Alex Ndyabakira (0000-0002-8420-462X, Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration), Kara Marson (0000-0001-9534-0371, University of California, San Francisco), Diane V Havlir (0000-0003-0761-3136, University of California, San Francisco), Moses R Kamya (0000-0001-9106-4234, Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration), Dalsone Kwarisiima (0000-0003-2886-9261, Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration), Gabriel Chamie (0000-0002-5860-8081, University of California, San Francisco), Harsha Thirumurthy (0000-0002-3308-7603, University of Pennsylvania, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume5
Issue11
Pagese003390
Publication date2020-11-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBMJ Global Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2059-7908 • E-ISSN: 2059-7908
PublisherBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003390
PMID33257417
OpenAlexW3110403261
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited15

INTRODUCTION: Interventions informed by behavioural economics, such as planning prompts, have the potential to increase HIV testing at minimal or no cost. Planning prompts have not been previously evaluated for HIV testing uptake. We conducted a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of low-cost planning prompts to promote HIV testing among men. METHODS: We randomised adult men in rural Ugandan parishes to receive a calendar planning prompt that gave them the opportunity to make a plan to get tested for HIV at health campaigns held in their communities. Participants received either a calendar showing the dates when the community health campaign would be held (control group) or a calendar showing the dates and prompting them to select a date and time when they planned to attend (planning prompt group). Participants were not required to select a date and time or to share their selection with study staff. The primary outcome was HIV testing uptake at the community health campaign. RESULTS: Among 2362 participants, 1796 (76%) participants tested for HIV. Men who received a planning prompt were 2.2 percentage points more likely to test than the control group, although the difference was not statistically significant (77.1% vs 74.9%; 95% CI -1.2 to 5.7 percentage points, p=0.20). The planning prompt was more effective among men enrolled ≤40 days before the campaigns (3.6 percentage-point increase in testing; 95% CI -2.9 to 10.1, p=0.27) than among men enrolled >40 days before the campaigns (1.8 percentage-point increase; 95% CI -2.3 to 5.8, p=0.39), although the effects within the subgroups were not significant. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that planning prompts may be an effective behavioural intervention to promote HIV testing at minimal or no cost. Large-scale studies should further assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of such interventions

Family medicine · Psychological intervention · Randomized controlled trial · Rural area · Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health · Demography · Global Maternal and Child Health · HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions · Medicine · Nursing · Gerontology · Surgery

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access