Behavioral Economic Incentives to Support HIV Care: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: This study tests behavioral economics incentives to improve adherence to antiretroviral treatment (ART), with 1 approach being low cost. SETTING: Three hundred twenty-nine adults at Mildmay Hospital in Kampala, Uganda, on ART for at least 2 years and showing adherence problems received the intervention for about 15 months until the study was interrupted by a nation-wide COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: We randomized participants into 1 of 3 (1:1:1) groups: usual care ("control" group; n = 109) or 1 of 2 intervention groups where eligibility for nonmonetary prizes was based on showing at least 90% electronically measured ART adherence ("adherence-linked" group, n = 111) or keeping clinic appointments as scheduled ("clinic-linked"; n = 109). After 12 months, participants could win a larger prize for consistently high adherence or viral suppression. Primary outcomes were mean adherence and viral suppression. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using linear regression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03494777 . RESULTS: Neither incentive arm increased adherence compared with the control; we estimate a 3.9 percentage point increase in "adherence-linked" arm [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.70 to 8.60 ( P = 0.10)] and 0.024 in the "clinic-linked" arm [95% CI: -0.02 to 0.07 ( P = 0.28)]. For the prespecified subgroup of those with initial low adherence, incentives increased adherence by 7.60 percentage points (95% CI: 0.01, 0.15; P = 0.04, "adherence-linked") and 5.60 percentage points (95% CI: -0.01, 0.12; P = 0.10, "clinic-linked"). We find no effects on clinic attendance or viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives did not improve viral suppression or ART adherence overall but worked for the prespecified subgroup of those with initial low adherence. More effectively identifying those in need of adherence support will allow better targeting of this and other incentive interventions.

Cost-effectiveness and economic returns of group-based parenting interventions to promote early childhood development: Results from a randomized controlled trial in rural Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Early childhood development (ECD) programs can help address disadvantages for the 43% of children under 5 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experiencing compromised development. However, very few studies from LMIC settings include information on their program's cost-effectiveness or potential returns to investment. We estimated the cost-effectiveness, benefit-cost ratios (BCRs), and returns on investment (ROIs) for 2 effective group-based delivery models of an ECD parenting intervention that utilized Kenya's network of local community health volunteers (CHVs). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Between October 1 and November 12, 2018, 1,152 mothers with children aged 6 to 24 months were surveyed from 60 villages in rural western Kenya. After baseline, villages were randomly assigned to one of 3 intervention arms: a group-only delivery model with 16 fortnightly sessions, a mixed-delivery model combining 12 group sessions with 4 home visits, and a control group. At endline (August 5 to October 31, 2019), 1,070 children were retained and assessed for primary outcomes including cognitive and receptive language development (with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third Edition) and socioemotional development (with the Wolke scale). Children in the 2 intervention arms showed better developmental outcomes than children in the control arm, although the group-only delivery model generally had larger effects on children. Total program costs included provider's implementation costs collected during the intervention period using financial reports from the local nongovernmental organization (NGO) implementer, as well as societal costs such as opportunity costs to mothers and delivery agents. We combined program impacts with these total costs to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), as well as BCRs and the program's ROI for the government based on predictions of future lifetime wages and societal costs. Total costs per child were US$140 in the group-only arm and US$145 in the mixed-delivery arm. Because of higher intention-to-treat (ITT) impacts at marginally lower costs, the group-only model was the most cost-effective across all child outcomes. Focusing on child cognition in this arm, we estimated an ICER of a 0.37 standard deviation (SD) improvement in cognition per US$100 invested, a BCR of 15.5, and an ROI of 127%. A limitation of our study is that our estimated BCR and ROI necessarily make assumptions about the discount rate, income tax rates, and predictions of intervention impacts on future wages and schooling. We examine the sensitivity of our results to these assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first economic evaluation of an effective ECD parenting intervention targeted to young children in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the first to adopt a societal perspective in calculating cost-effectiveness that accounts for opportunity costs to delivery agents and program participants. Our cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost estimates are higher than most of the limited number of prior studies from LMIC settings providing information about costs. Our results represent a strong case for scaling similar interventions in impoverished rural settings, and, under reasonable assumptions about the future, demonstrate that the private and social returns of such investments are likely to largely outweigh their costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548558, June 7, 2018. American Economic Association RCT Registry trial AEARCTR-0002913.

Group-based parenting interventions to promote child development in rural Kenya: a multi-arm, cluster-randomised community effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Early childhood development (ECD) programmes can help address early disadvantages for the 43% of children younger than 5 years in low-income and middle-income countries who have compromised development. We aimed to test the effectiveness of two group-based delivery models for an integrated ECD responsive stimulation and nutrition education intervention using Kenya's network of community health volunteers. METHODS: We implemented a multi-arm, cluster-randomised community effectiveness trial in three rural subcounties across 60 villages (clusters) in western Kenya. Eligible participants were mothers or female primary caregivers aged 15 years or older with children aged 6-24 months at enrolment. If married or in established relationships, fathers or male caregivers aged 18 years or older were also eligible. Villages were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three groups: group-only delivery with 16 fortnightly sessions; mixed delivery combining 12 group sessions with four home visits; and a comparison group. Villages in the intervention groups were randomly assigned (1:1) to invite or not invite fathers and male caregivers to participate. Households were surveyed at baseline and immediately post-intervention. Assessors were masked. Primary outcomes were child cognitive and language development (score on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development third edition), socioemotional development (score on the Wolke scale), and parental stimulation (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment inventory). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548558. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1 and Nov 12, 2018, 1152 mother-child dyads were enrolled and randomly assigned (n=376 group-only intervention, n=400 mixed-delivery intervention, n=376 comparison group). At the 11-month endline survey (Aug 5-Oct 31, 2019), 1070 households were assessed for the primary outcomes (n=346 group only, n=373 mixed delivery, n=351 comparison). Children in group-only villages had higher cognitive (effect size 0·52 SD [95% CI 0·21-0·83]), receptive language (0·42 SD [0·08-0·77]), and socioemotional scores (0·23 SD [0·03-0·44]) than children in comparison villages at endline. Children in mixed-delivery villages had higher cognitive (0·34 SD [0·05-0·62]) and socioemotional scores (0·22 SD [0·05-0·38]) than children in comparison villages; there was no difference in language scores. Parental stimulation also improved for group-only (0·80 SD [0·49-1·11]) and mixed-delivery villages (0·77 SD [0·49-1·05]) compared with the villages in the comparison group. Including fathers in the intervention had no measurable effect on any of the primary outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Parenting interventions delivered by trained community health volunteers in mother-child groups can effectively promote child development in low-resource settings and have great potential for scalability. FUNDING: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health.

Cost-related medication underuse: prevalence among hospitalized managed care patients.

BACKGROUND: The affordability of prescription medications continues to be a major public health issue in the United States. Estimates of cost-related medication underuse come largely from surveys of ambulatory patients. Hospitalized patients may be vulnerable to cost-related underuse and its consequences, but have been subject to little investigation. OBJECTIVE: To determine impact of medication costs in a cohort of hospitalized managed care beneficiaries. METHODS: We surveyed consecutive patients admitted to medical services at an academic medical center. Questions about cost-related underuse were based on validated measures; predictors were assessed with multivariable models. Participants were asked about strategies to improve medication affordability, and were contacted after discharge to determine if they had filled newly prescribed medications. RESULTS: One-hundred thirty (41%) of 316 potentially eligible patients participated; 93 (75%) of these completed postdischarge surveys. Thirty patients (23%) reported cost-related underuse in the year prior to admission. In adjusted analyses, patients of black race were 3.39 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 11.02) more likely to report cost-related underuse than non-Hispanic white patients. Virtually all respondents (n = 123; 95%) endorsed at least 1 strategy to make medications more affordable. Few (16%) patients, prescribed medications at discharge, knew how much they would pay at the pharmacy. Almost none had spoken to their inpatient (4%) or outpatient (2%) providers about the cost of newly prescribed drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-related underuse is common among hospitalized patients. Individuals of black race appear to be particularly at risk. Strategies should be developed to address this issue around the time of hospital discharge.

Medicare beneficiaries' knowledge of and choices regarding Part D, 2005 to the present.

In the months before and years since Medicare Part D's implementation in January 2006, many have been concerned with beneficiaries' ability to benefit from the complex program. A systematic review of published Medline and gray literature from January 1, 2005, to August 20, 2009, was undertaken to evaluate Medicare beneficiaries' knowledge about Part D and how this knowledge informed decisions regarding enrollment and plan choice. Thirty articles that reported original results describing seniors' knowledge of the Part D benefit, decision to enroll, or selection of plans; results from patient surveys addressing these issues; or results that analyzed enrollment data or plan selection patterns were included. Of these 30 articles, 10 described beneficiaries' knowledge, 12 described enrollment and plan choices, and eight described knowledge and choice. Across studies and years, beneficiaries' knowledge of the Part D program and benefit structure and design was poor, particularly with regard to the coverage gap and the low-income subsidy. Beneficiaries had great difficulty choosing the lowest-cost Part D plans and were disinclined to switch plans to improve their benefits. Knowledge deficits, enrollment problems, and plan choice difficulties were most pronounced during Part D implementation in early 2006 but persisted in subsequent years of the benefit. Beneficiaries' knowledge and choices should be monitored on an ongoing basis to inform potential changes to the Part D program.