Vouchers versus lotteries: What works best in promoting chlamydia screening? A cluster randomized controlled trial

16Citations
Citations of this article
51Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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 18-24 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. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Niza, C., Rudisill, C., & Dolan, P. (2014). Vouchers versus lotteries: What works best in promoting chlamydia screening? A cluster randomized controlled trial. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt033

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free