Vouchers versus Lotteries: What Works Best in Promoting Chlamydia Screening? A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Vouchers versus Lotteries: What Works Best in Promoting Chlamydia Screening? A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aepp/ppt033
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-01
影响因子：
5.8
通讯作者：
Dolan, Paul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Niza, Claudia;Rudisill, Caroline;Dolan, Paul
在这项整群随机试验 (N 1060) 中，我们模仿对学生宿舍学生的标准外展方法，测试了经济激励措施（5 张代金券与 200 张彩票）的影响，这些激励措施被视为促进 1824 岁学生衣原体筛查的得失。与对照组（1.5%）相比，抽奖将筛查率提高至 2.8%，代金券将筛查率提高至 22.8%。以收益为框架的激励措施 (10.5%) 略高于以损失为框架的激励措施 (7.1%)。这项工作通过测试前景理论改变该领域健康行为的预测有效性，为文献做出了贡献。
In this cluster randomized trial (N 1060), we tested the impact of financial incentives (5 voucher vs. 200 lottery) framed as a gain or loss to promote Chlamydia screening in students aged 1824 years, mimicking the standard outreach approach to student in halls of residence. Compared to the control group (1.5%), the lottery increased screening to 2.8% and the voucher increased screening to 22.8%. Incentives framed as gains were marginally more effective (10.5%) than loss-framed incentives (7.1%). This work contributes to the literature by testing the predictive validity of Prospect Theory to change health behavior in the field.