Academic Journal
View in EDS
PDF Full Text
HTML Full Text

Impact of family networks on uptake of health interventions: evidence from a community‐randomized control trial aimed at increasing HIV testing in South Africa

Bibliographic Details
Title: Impact of family networks on uptake of health interventions: evidence from a community‐randomized control trial aimed at increasing HIV testing in South Africa
Authors: Keletso Makofane, Hae‐Young Kim, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, Mary T. Bassett, Lisa Berkman, Oluwafemi Adeagbo, Nuala McGrath, Janet Seeley, Maryam Shahmanesh, H. Manisha Yapa, Kobus Herbst, Frank Tanser, Till Bärnighausen
Source: Journal of the International AIDS Society, Vol 26, Iss 8, Pp n/a-n/a (2023)
Publisher Information: Wiley, 2023.
Publication Year: 2023
Collection: LCC:Immunologic diseases. Allergy
Subject Terms: HIV epidemiology, testing, social networks, randomized controlled trial (RCT), AHRI, social epidemiology, Immunologic diseases. Allergy, RC581-607
More Details: Abstract Introduction While it is widely acknowledged that family relationships can influence health outcomes, their impact on the uptake of individual health interventions is unclear. In this study, we quantified how the efficacy of a randomized health intervention is shaped by its pattern of distribution in the family network. Methods The “Home‐Based Intervention to Test and Start” (HITS) was a 2×2 factorial community‐randomized controlled trial in Umkhanyakude, KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa, embedded in the Africa Health Research Institute's population‐based demographic and HIV surveillance platform (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03757104). The study investigated the impact of two interventions: a financial micro‐incentive and a male‐targeted HIV‐specific decision support programme. The surveillance area was divided into 45 community clusters. Individuals aged ≥15 years in 16 randomly selected communities were offered a micro‐incentive (R50 [$3] food voucher) for rapid HIV testing (intervention arm). Those living in the remaining 29 communities were offered testing only (control arm). Study data were collected between February and November 2018. Using routinely collected data on parents, conjugal partners, and co‐residents, a socio‐centric family network was constructed among HITS‐eligible individuals. Nodes in this network represent individuals and ties represent family relationships. We estimated the effect of offering the incentive to people with and without family members who also received the offer on the uptake of HIV testing. We fitted a linear probability model with robust standard errors, accounting for clustering at the community level. Results Overall, 15,675 people participated in the HITS trial. Among those with no family members who received the offer, the incentive's efficacy was a 6.5 percentage point increase (95% CI: 5.3−7.7). The efficacy was higher among those with at least one family member who received the offer (21.1 percentage point increase (95% CI: 19.9−22.3). The difference in efficacy was statistically significant (21.1–6.5 = 14.6%; 95% CI: 9.3−19.9). Conclusions Micro‐incentives appear to have synergistic effects when distributed within family networks. These effects support family network‐based approaches for the design of health interventions.
Document Type: article
File Description: electronic resource
Language: English
ISSN: 1758-2652
Relation: https://doaj.org/toc/1758-2652
DOI: 10.1002/jia2.26142
Access URL: https://doaj.org/article/33e7667fa7c0412e97266111841a6c5a
Accession Number: edsdoj.33e7667fa7c0412e97266111841a6c5a
Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHjPtM4BHU3ZchRwgzYmadcigk49r9CVlbU7V5F6lgH7WwFjCCSbWjXMZ9vvorTW4zGXAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCVClWccRM6f2CLFWQIBEICBmv4BjoH2X3b13n-26caEFcj09Xbx3ecaSFez6iwO2FLtjz7P7reTQ8HvrL8hVEwny7tcDVHDxJ-QoxRdntcTVhd5KM-dx_cXhVrMAaKjpeeRIPHYg8CjIE7EM9Ca1Ouysv7tTz9UxF6pMOBJGil5a9MWOy4WDgNckgHSD_cUv3RkGRsAw70GowBRag6GBeS3vfo2AXE2a6QTvHA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0170906294;[96hg]01aug.23;2023Aug31.06:10;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0170906294-1">Impact of family networks on uptake of health interventions: evidence from a community‐randomized control trial aimed at increasing HIV testing in South Africa </title> <p>Introduction: While it is widely acknowledged that family relationships can influence health outcomes, their impact on the uptake of individual health interventions is unclear. In this study, we quantified how the efficacy of a randomized health intervention is shaped by its pattern of distribution in the family network. Methods: The "Home‐Based Intervention to Test and Start" (HITS) was a 2×2 factorial community‐randomized controlled trial in Umkhanyakude, KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa, embedded in the Africa Health Research Institute's population‐based demographic and HIV surveillance platform (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03757104). The study investigated the impact of two interventions: a financial micro‐incentive and a male‐targeted HIV‐specific decision support programme. The surveillance area was divided into 45 community clusters. Individuals aged ≥15 years in 16 randomly selected communities were offered a micro‐incentive (R50 [$3] food voucher) for rapid HIV testing (intervention arm). Those living in the remaining 29 communities were offered testing only (control arm). Study data were collected between February and November 2018. Using routinely collected data on parents, conjugal partners, and co‐residents, a socio‐centric family network was constructed among HITS‐eligible individuals. Nodes in this network represent individuals and ties represent family relationships. We estimated the effect of offering the incentive to people with and without family members who also received the offer on the uptake of HIV testing. We fitted a linear probability model with robust standard errors, accounting for clustering at the community level. Results: Overall, 15,675 people participated in the HITS trial. Among those with no family members who received the offer, the incentive's efficacy was a 6.5 percentage point increase (95% CI: 5.3−7.7). The efficacy was higher among those with at least one family member who received the offer (21.1 percentage point increase (95% CI: 19.9−22.3). The difference in efficacy was statistically significant (21.1–6.5 = 14.6%; 95% CI: 9.3−19.9). Conclusions: Micro‐incentives appear to have synergistic effects when distributed within family networks. These effects support family network‐based approaches for the design of health interventions.</p> <p>Keywords: HIV epidemiology; testing; social networks; randomized controlled trial (RCT); AHRI; social epidemiology</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Though family relationships crucially determine health and wellbeing, their role in shaping the uptake of individual health interventions is not well‐understood. Using family network data from a large population‐based cohort, we quantified the degree to which the efficacy of a randomized individual‐level health intervention—a financial incentive for HIV testing—is shaped by its pattern of distribution among family members.</p> <p>Improving testing programmes can increase access to anti‐retroviral therapy (ART) which effectively eliminates HIV transmission at the individual level [[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]] and has substantially reduced population incidence [[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]]. Recognizing the uneven distribution of risk and access to services in so‐called "generalized epidemics" [[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]], recent global public health guidance advocates multiple strategies for testing in these settings [[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]]. Interventions that leverage personal networks are among the most effective [[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]]. For instance, distributing HIV self‐test kits to men through their sexual, romantic and other social relationships has been shown to improve the acceptability and uptake of testing [[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]]. Unrelated to networks but also effective are testing interventions that utilize financial incentives [[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]].</p> <p>Through a post‐hoc analysis of Home‐Based Intervention to Test and Start (HITS) study data, we quantified how the effectiveness of a financial incentive for HIV testing changes depending on whether it is offered to an individual or offered to an individual along with family members. HITS, which was conducted in South Africa, investigated the effects on HIV testing and linkage to care of a ZAR 50 (USD 3) incentive and a male‐targeted HIV‐specific decision support programme. We previously reported that among men, the uptake of HIV testing increased from 17.1% in the standard of care to 27.5% in the financial incentives arm (risk ratio = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.31−1.82) [[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]].</p> <p>We build on this finding by testing the hypothesis that, for a given individual, the effectiveness of the financial incentive is augmented by offering incentives to family members prior to, or at the same time as, the individual. For many South Africans, resources are shared among extended family across different households [[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]]. It is possible, therefore, that over the course of the HITS trial, family members influenced each other's HIV testing behaviour in order to maximize receipt of incentives.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-3">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170906294-4">Setting and participants</hd> <p>HITS is a community‐randomized controlled trial in the Hlabisa sub‐district of the uMkhanyakude district—a rural region of northern KwaZulu‐Natal with a high HIV burden and unemployment [[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]]. It is nested in the Africa Health Research Institute's population‐based demographic and HIV surveillance platform which follows 140,000 residents living in an area of 845 km<sups>2</sups> [[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]]. As part of annual routine HIV surveillance, trained field workers visit all households and record demographic information, including parents, co‐residents and conjugal partners of each household member. During visits, all residents aged 15 years or older are offered home‐based rapid HIV testing.</p> <p>Individuals were eligible for HITS if they were 15 years or older at the time of the surveillance visit, resided within the surveillance area, agreed to participate in annual HIV surveillance and provided written informed consent for trial participation. Individuals were not eligible to participate in the trial if they refused to participate in HIV surveillance, reported being already on ART or were mentally or physically unable to provide consent. The study is registered at the U.S. National Institute for Health's ClinicalTrials.gov (# NCT03757104). Further details are available in earlier publications [[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref16">19</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-5">Randomization and masking</hd> <p>The HITS study investigated two interventions: a financial micro‐incentive for HIV testing and a male‐targeted HIV‐specific decision support programme [[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]]. The surveillance area was divided into 45 community clusters which were randomized to study interventions using a 2 × 2 factorial design, permitting each intervention to be assessed separately. Interventions were delivered between February and November 2018. We consider the effect of the micro‐incentive alone since the other study intervention was restricted to men, whereas our analysis includes all HITS participants (see Figure 1).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/96HG/01aug23/jia226142-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84y9fwOLCmsE2epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jia226142-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Flow diagram for HITS trial." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The 45 communities were grouped into four strata based on baseline HIV incidence rates among women aged 15–30 years. The intervention arm consisted of four randomly selected communities from each of the four strata (16 communities total). The control arm consisted of the remainder of the communities in each stratum (29 communities total). The study was an open‐label trial.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-7">Consent and intervention</hd> <p>Only residents who agreed to participate in annual AHRI HIV surveillance were eligible to participate in HITS. Residents were asked for their consent at the study visit. Those who consented to AHRI HIV surveillance were then asked for their consent to participate in the HITS study.</p> <p>Those who were eligible for and consented to participate in HITS were enrolled. Those who resided in control communities were offered rapid HIV testing per the HIV surveillance protocol. Those in intervention communities were offered a micro‐incentive conditional on undergoing home‐based rapid HIV testing during the study visit. The micro‐incentive was a food voucher valued at ZAR 50 (∼USD 3), which was redeemable at a local supermarket [[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-8">Social network</hd> <p>A socio‐centric family network was constructed among HITS‐eligible individuals using routinely collected surveillance data. Nodes in this network represent individuals. Three kinds of ties were added between the nodes: first‐degree relatives (parents, children and all conjugal partners of each participant), second‐degree relatives (the first‐degree relatives of first‐degree relatives) and co‐resident relatives (individuals who ever resided in the same household as the participant and who were not tenants or domestic workers in that household). Below, we refer to members of each person's personal family network (i.e. the egocentric network) simply as "family members."</p> <p>Family members of residents are only recorded if they ever resided in the surveillance area. For most individuals, it was possible to identify at least one family member—only 2.7% (424/15,675) of HITS participants were not linked with any other residents. Because surveillance began in 2000, older residents were less likely to be observed at the same time as their parents. Among the records of individuals aged 15–25, 15.0% (2321/15,458) were not linked to their mother's record and 48.3% (7471/15,458) were not linked to their father's. Among those over 55 years of age, these proportions were 87.9% (4795/5458) and 97.3% (5310/5458), respectively. Missing linkages between participants and their parents indicate that their parents were not eligible for the study.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-9">Measures</hd> <p>The outcome of interest was individual uptake of rapid HIV testing at the study visit. Exposures of interest were individual offer of financial incentive ("individual offer") and family offer of incentive ("family offer"). For each participant, family offer was defined as the count of family members who were offered the financial incentive prior to or on the same day as the participant's own study visit. Network size was defined as the count of family members.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-10">Analysis</hd> <p>We calculated sample characteristics, examined patterns of network connections between communities and described the composition of network connections.</p> <p>For the primary analysis, we examined heterogeneity in the effect of the individual offer on HIV testing uptake across strata defined by the dichotomized family offer (≥1 vs. 0). We fitted a linear probability regression model with a two‐way interaction encoding the extent to which the causal effect of individual offer is modified by dichotomized family offer. (See Measures sub‐section for the definition of "family offer.") In a secondary analysis, we examined heterogeneity across strata defined by ordinal family offer. We fitted a linear probability model with two‐way interaction terms encoding the extent to which the causal effect of individual offer is modified by family offer levels of zero, one, two, three, four and five or more. We conducted a linear trend test. Finally, we conducted sensitivity analyses which we report in a Supplementary Note.</p> <p>Models were fitted using robust standard errors, accounting for clustering at the community level. We did not formally adjust for multiple testing as we conducted only three hypothesis tests.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-11">Missing data</hd> <p>We conducted a complete case analysis as only 10/15,675 observations had missing outcome data. All other variables included in the regression models were complete.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-12">Power and sample size</hd> <p>The HITS sample size was calculated to detect a relative reduction of 25% or more in HIV incidence among women aged 15–30 with power exceeding 80% and α = 0.05. Further details have been previously reported [[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-13">Ethics statement</hd> <p>The Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the University of KwaZulu‐Natal approved study protocols for the AHRI's population‐based HIV testing platform and HITS intervention (BE290/16 and BFC398/16) [[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-14">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170906294-15">Participants and network</hd> <p>Of 37,068 residents who met the inclusion criteria for the HITS study, 15,675 participated and 15,665 were included in the analysis (see Figure 1). In total, 5638 participants lived in intervention communities (i.e. communities to whom an incentive was offered) and 10,037 in control communities. Further descriptive results have been previously reported [[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]].</p> <p>It was common for participants to have family members in different households (60.4%, 9468/15,675) and different communities (42.2%, 6613/15,675) (see Table 1). However, compared to people living in control communities, people in intervention communities were more likely to have family members who live in an intervention community (85.1%, 4799/5638 vs. 9.4%, 945/10,037). This is because family member households are geographically clustered. Study arms were balanced on age, gender, HIV testing history, network size and proportions of family members in different households and different communities.</p> <p>1 Table Baseline characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">Control arm (<italic>N</italic> = 10,037)</th><th align="center">Incentive arm (<italic>N</italic> = 5638)</th><th align="center">Overall (<italic>N</italic> = 15,675)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Age</td></tr><tr><td>15−25</td><td>3920 (39.1%)</td><td>2292 (40.7%)</td><td>6212 (39.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>26−35</td><td>1690 (16.8%)</td><td>922 (16.4%)</td><td>2612 (16.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>36−45</td><td>1194 (11.9%)</td><td>679 (12.0%)</td><td>1873 (11.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>46−55</td><td>1247 (12.4%)</td><td>695 (12.3%)</td><td>1942 (12.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>>55</td><td>1986 (19.8%)</td><td>1050 (18.6%)</td><td>3036 (19.4%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>6974 (69.5%)</td><td>3829 (67.9%)</td><td>10803 (68.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>3063 (30.5%)</td><td>1809 (32.1%)</td><td>4872 (31.1%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ever tested HIV positive</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1796 (17.9%)</td><td>1029 (18.3%)</td><td>2825 (18.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>6344 (63.2%)</td><td>3716 (65.9%)</td><td>10060 (64.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Refused</td><td>113 (1.1%)</td><td>61 (1.1%)</td><td>174 (1.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1784 (17.8%)</td><td>832 (14.8%)</td><td>2616 (16.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Family network size</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>290 (2.9%)</td><td>134 (2.4%)</td><td>424 (2.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>1−5</td><td>5365 (53.5%)</td><td>3029 (53.7%)</td><td>8394 (53.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>6−10</td><td>3064 (30.5%)</td><td>1723 (30.6%)</td><td>4787 (30.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>11−15</td><td>961 (9.6%)</td><td>539 (9.6%)</td><td>1500 (9.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>16+</td><td>357 (3.6%)</td><td>213 (3.8%)</td><td>570 (3.6%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Percentage of family members in different household</td></tr><tr><td>0%</td><td>3990 (39.8%)</td><td>2217 (39.3%)</td><td>6207 (39.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>0%−20%</td><td>820 (8.2%)</td><td>438 (7.8%)</td><td>1258 (8.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>20%−40%</td><td>1484 (14.8%)</td><td>909 (16.1%)</td><td>2393 (15.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>40%−60%</td><td>1390 (13.8%)</td><td>792 (14.0%)</td><td>2182 (13.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>60%−80%</td><td>1343 (13.4%)</td><td>727 (12.9%)</td><td>2070 (13.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>80%−100%</td><td>571 (5.7%)</td><td>313 (5.6%)</td><td>884 (5.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>100%</td><td>439 (4.4%)</td><td>242 (4.3%)</td><td>681 (4.3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Percentage of family members in different community</td></tr><tr><td>0%</td><td>5831 (58.1%)</td><td>3231 (57.3%)</td><td>9062 (57.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>0%−20%</td><td>1237 (12.3%)</td><td>655 (11.6%)</td><td>1892 (12.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>20%−40%</td><td>1269 (12.6%)</td><td>759 (13.5%)</td><td>2028 (12.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>40%−60%</td><td>803 (8.0%)</td><td>486 (8.6%)</td><td>1289 (8.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>60%−80%</td><td>537 (5.4%)</td><td>320 (5.7%)</td><td>857 (5.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>80%−100%</td><td>189 (1.9%)</td><td>88 (1.6%)</td><td>277 (1.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>100%</td><td>171 (1.7%)</td><td>99 (1.8%)</td><td>270 (1.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Network treatment (# family members in incentive arm and who have prior study visit)</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>9092 (90.6%)</td><td>839 (14.9%)</td><td>9931 (63.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>551 (5.5%)</td><td>1205 (21.4%)</td><td>1756 (11.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>175 (1.7%)</td><td>1088 (19.3%)</td><td>1263 (8.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>77 (0.8%)</td><td>810 (14.4%)</td><td>887 (5.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>50 (0.5%)</td><td>570 (10.1%)</td><td>620 (4.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>5+</td><td>92 (0.9%)</td><td>1126 (20.0%)</td><td>1218 (7.8%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Each community had family connections with almost every other community (see Figure 2). Overall, 77% (83,368/107,746) of connections were within communities (as opposed to across them). On average, communities in the control arm had 1947 (56,459/29) connections to individuals in other control communities, whereas communities in the intervention arm had an average of 1682 (26,909/16) connections with individuals in other intervention communities. The proportion of connections that spanned intervention arms was 52% (11,178/21,507) for control communities and 80% (11,178/14,049) for intervention communities.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/96HG/01aug23/jia226142-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84y9fwOLCmsE2epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jia226142-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Family connections between communities in HITS study. The top part of the figure is a grid showing the number of family connections within each of the 45 randomization communities on the diagonal, and the number of family connections between each pair of communities below the diagonal. The size of the circles is proportional to the number of connections. Orange and blue bar graphs in the lower part of the diagram show the number of connections across communities but within the intervention arm and control arm, respectively. The grey bar graph shows the proportion of connections across communities in different study arms. The diagram shows that each community was connected to almost every other community through family ties." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Two‐thirds (64.7%, 3647/5637) of participants in the intervention arm agreed to take an HIV rapid test, whereas half (50.7%, 5087/10,028) of participants in the control arm agreed, leading to an overall risk difference of 13.6 (95% CI: 12.0−15.3). Of the 8734 participants who consented for an HIV test, HIV test results were recorded for 8700.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-17">Primary analysis</hd> <p>We found support for the hypothesis that the effect of the incentive on an individual's HIV testing uptake is augmented by offering incentives to their family members prior to, or at the same time as, them (see Figure 3). Among participants with at least one family member who was offered the incentive, the micro‐incentive increased testing uptake by 21% (95% CI: 19.9−22.3). In contrast, among participants with no family members who were offered the incentive, the micro‐incentive only increased testing uptake by 6.5% (95% CI: 5.3−7.7). The risk difference among the former group is 14.6% higher (95% CI: 9.3−19.9) than among the latter.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/96HG/01aug23/jia226142-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84y9fwOLCmsE2epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jia226142-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Effect heterogeneity of HITS intervention. The table shows results from the primary analysis (dichotomized family treatment) above and the secondary analysis (ordinal family treatment) below. Efficacy was calculated on the risk difference scale." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170906294-19">Secondary analysis</hd> <p>The strength of the effect of the individual offer increased as more family members received a prior or contemporaneous offer of the incentive, further supporting the main hypothesis. Effect sizes increased from 6.5% (95% CI: 5.3–7.7) among participants with no family members who received the offer to 26.3% (95% CI: 23.5–29.0) among participants with three family members who received it. The effect size of the individual incentive appeared not to change substantially when four (RD: 25.5, 95% CI: 20.2–30.7) or five or more (RD: 24.8, 95% CI: 20.7–28.9) family members received the offer. A linear trend test showed that for each additional family member who was offered the incentive, the risk difference for the effect of the incentive on testing uptake increased by 4.8% (95% CI: 2.4−7.2) on average.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-20">Sensitivity analysis</hd> <p>In the Supplementary Note, we examined the potential impact of selection bias in study participation on the results of the primary analysis. Figure S1 shows a causal directed acyclic graph for HITS study participation. Tables S1 and S3 show study results after conditioning on family size and applying inverse probability of selection weights. Table S2 shows participation rates in AHRI HIV surveillance by age and gender. We conclude that the study findings are robust to selection bias.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-21">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The HITS study confirms that a modest community‐wide financial incentive increases the uptake of HIV testing. Our study establishes that an individual offered a financial incentive is more likely to take up testing when family members have received the same offer prior to or at the same time as them. The strength of the effect appears to increase with the count of family members in receipt of the offer.</p> <p>This finding adds to a growing body of evidence from randomized control trials demonstrating that economic incentives increase the uptake of HIV testing [[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref26">20</reflink>]]–[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]] and improve clinical cascade outcomes more generally [[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]]. Past trials show consistent evidence that incentives improve treatment initiation [[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref29">26</reflink>]], adherence to ART [[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>]]–[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]] and continuation in care [[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]]. They show mixed evidence that incentives improve linkage to care [[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]]. Despite their promise as a general‐purpose HIV intervention, however, economic incentives have not been shown to lead to substantial reductions in incidence [[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]].</p> <p>Though prior studies are often not explicit about the causal mechanism through which incentives are hypothesized to shape behaviour, several explanations do appear in the epidemiologic literature. Incentives can change the structural environment in which behaviour unfolds (for instance by alleviating poverty); they can affect the price of some behaviour or good, or the income of the recipient in relation to that good or behaviour; and they can intervene on the psychological processes that shape behaviour [[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref38">35</reflink>]]. In each case, studies commonly assume that the causal chain unfolds entirely <emph>within</emph> individuals and not across them.</p> <p>There are some notable exceptions. Several trials have shown that incentivizing close social contacts—most commonly romantic [[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref39">37</reflink>]] or sexual partners [[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref40">39</reflink>]] or caregivers of children [[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref42">41</reflink>]]—improves testing uptake. Furthermore, even in the absence of financial incentives, sexual and romantic partnerships have proven a useful conduit through which to deliver HIV testing services [[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref43">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]]. Our study extends these findings to demonstrate the impact of members of the family network in general, suggesting an opportunity to use a wider range of meaningful social relationships to reach individuals living with HIV with testing and other services.</p> <p>Developing and applying theory that reflects the interdependence of individuals could enable the development of new interventions. For instance, family‐based intervention strategies might be effective at reaching groups which otherwise have low access to health services, such as young people [[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref45">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref46">42</reflink>]]. Because of high youth unemployment in South Africa [[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref47">17</reflink>]], young people tend to depend on family members for material support [[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref48">43</reflink>]]. They are likely to be connected with, and therefore, reachable through, members of their family networks. To apply a behavioural economics analysis to this type of intervention, it would be useful to define the concepts of <emph>utility</emph> and <emph>resources</emph> at the group level, to understand decision‐making as a collective (rather than individual) process, and to understand the impact of cognitive biases on this collective process.</p> <p>We make a novel contribution to the fields of study design and applied causal inference. Our results show empirical evidence for the violation of the assumption of "partial interference" in the context of a large‐scale cluster‐randomized trial [[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>]]. The assumption holds that while individuals within clusters might influence each other's outcomes, individuals across distinct clusters do not. It underpins the interpretation of the difference in average outcomes (comparing intervention and control arms) as an overall treatment effect [[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref50">44</reflink>]]. When there are substantial connections across clusters, failing to account for them might lead to biased or uninterpretable effect estimates.</p> <p>It is likely that there are important social relationships that are relevant to HIV testing that were not captured in population surveillance data. This is a limitation of our study. Further research should develop methods to account for missing network data and design new approaches to measuring socio‐centric networks. A further limitation is that we used the assumption of partial interference to calculate standard errors, though we show this assumption to be violated. This was motivated by the fact that network connections are much denser within clusters than they are across them; we do not expect this analytic decision to lead to anti‐conservative estimates of uncertainty. Finally, we did not adjust for multiple testing, though we note that using the Bonferroni correction (i.e. using a nominal Type I error rate of 0.05/3 = 0.017) would not have altered the main conclusions of this study.</p> <p>A major strength of our findings is that they are not susceptible to homophily bias—bias that arises because of the tendency for people with similar unmeasured characteristics to form relationships based on those characteristics [[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref51">45</reflink>]]. This is because the study intervention was randomly assigned after the formation of family relationships. A further strength is the applicability of our approach in different settings: it is feasible to conduct a family network analysis using data from any study embedded in the health and demographic surveillance systems of South Africa. Finally, sensitivity analyses show the estimates presented in the main analysis to be conservative.</p> <p>Understanding humans in the context of their relationships can lead to improvements in population health. There is an urgent need to cultivate robust social network data for epidemiologic analysis—whether by collecting them, constructing them from already collected study data as we did here or connecting passively collected information, such as social media data, with large public health datasets.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-22">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>By combining family network data with data from a field experiment, we showed that network‐based financial incentive programmes for a behavioural health intervention might be more efficient than individual‐based programmes. While the field experiment was conducted in 2018, it is likely that our findings continue to apply in the current context since they are based on long‐standing social relationships among participants. Future HIV testing studies should assess interventions targeted at networks. More generally, public health studies should leverage data on participants' social networks to generate new insights about population health and to spur on the development of new intervention approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-23">Role of the funding source</hd> <p>Study sponsors had no role in the design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or write‐up of this study, nor did they influence the decisions to submit the results for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-24">COMPETING INTERESTS</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests relating to this manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-25">AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p>KM conducted an analysis and drafted the manuscript. ETT, MTB and LB edited the manuscript. KM developed an analytic plan with ETT, HYK and TB. FT and TB accessed and verified all underlying data. All authors discussed and reviewed the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-26">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>Our sincere thanks to the Africa Health Research Institute's population‐based demographic and HIV surveillance platform. We are grateful, also, to peer reviewers and editors whose thoughtful criticism led to improvements in the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0170906294-27">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Study data, including de‐identified participant data and data dictionaries, are available for download from the AHRI Data Repository (https://data.ahri.org/index.php/home) subject to the submission and approval of a study proposal.</p> <p>GRAPH: Figure S1: Directed Acyclic Graph for HITS Study Selection.Table S1: Stratum‐specific causal estimates for a financial incentive for HIV Testing.Table S2: Participation in HIV Surveillance by Age and Gender.Table S3: Stratum‐specific causal estimates for a financial incentive for HIV Testing (with inverse probability of selection weighting).</p> <ref id="AN0170906294-28"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> F. Tanser and T. Bärnighausen are both senior authors.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0170906294-29"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Rodger AJ, Cambiano V, Bruun T, Vernazza P, Collins S, van Lunzen J, et al. Sexual activity without condoms and risk of HIV transmission in serodifferent couples when the HIV‐positive partner is using suppressive antiretroviral therapy. JAMA. 2016 ; 316 (2): 171 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Tanser F, Bärnighausen T, Grapsa E, Zaidi J, Newell ML. High coverage of ART associated with decline in risk of HIV acquisition in rural KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa. Science. 2013 ; 339 (6122): 966 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Grabowski MK, Serwadda DM, Gray RH, Nakigozi G, Kigozi G, Kagaayi J, et al. HIV prevention efforts and incidence of HIV in Uganda. N Engl J Med. 2017 ; 377 (22): 2154 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Vandormael A, Akullian A, Siedner M, de Oliveira T, Bärnighausen T, Tanser F. Declines in HIV incidence among men and women in a South African population‐based cohort. Nat Commun. 2019 ; 10 (1): 5482.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Makofane K, van der Elst EM, Walimbwa J, Nemande S, Baral SD. From general to specific: moving past the general population in the HIV response across sub‐Saharan Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020 ; 23 : e25605.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> World Health Organization. Consolidated guidelines on HIV testing services, 2019 [Internet]. Geneva : World Health Organization ; 2020 [cited 2021 Dec 10]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/336323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> World Health Organization. Guidelines on HIV self‐testing and partner notification: supplement to consolidated guidelines on HIV testing services [Internet]. Geneva : World Health Organization ; 2016 [cited 2022 Jan 1]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/251655</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Choko AT, Corbett EL, Stallard N, Maheswaran H, Lepine A, Johnson CC, et al. HIV self‐testing alone or with additional interventions, including financial incentives, and linkage to care or prevention among male partners of antenatal care clinic attendees in Malawi: an adaptive multi‐arm, multi‐stage cluster randomised trial. PLoS Med. 2019 ; 16 (1): e1002719.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref43" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Mutale W, Freeborn K, Graybill LA, Lusaka MM, Mollan KR, Mweemba O, et al. Addition of HIV self‐test kits to partner notification services to increase HIV testing of male partners of pregnant women in Zambia: two parallel randomised trials. Lancet Glob Health. 2021 ; 9 (12): e1719 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown LB, Miller WC, Kamanga G, Nyirenda N, Mmodzi P, Pettifor A, et al. HIV partner notification is effective and feasible in sub‐Saharan Africa: opportunities for HIV treatment and prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011 ; 56 (5): 437 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marwa T, Karanja S, Osero J, Orago A. The effects of HIV self‐testing kits in increasing uptake of male partner testing among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in Kenya: a randomized controlled trial. Pan Afr Med J. 2019 ; 33 : 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanser FC, Kim HY, Mathenjwa T, Shahmanesh M, Seeley J, Matthews P, et al. Home‐Based Intervention to Test and Start (HITS): a community‐randomized controlled trial to increase HIV testing uptake among men in rural South Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2021 ; 24 (2): e25665.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montoy JCC, Dow WH, Kaplan BC. Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2018 ; 13 (7): e0199833.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chamie G, Kwarisiima D, Ndyabakira A, Marson K, Camlin CS, Havlir DV, et al. Financial incentives and deposit contracts to promote HIV retesting in Uganda: a randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2021 ; 18 (5): e1003630.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madhavan S, Clark S, Beguy D, Kabiru CW, Gross M. Moving beyond the household: innovations in data collection on kinship. Popul Stud (Camb). 2017 ; 71 (1): 117 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gareta D, Baisley K, Mngomezulu T, Smit T, Khoza T, Nxumalo S, et al. Cohort profile update: Africa Centre Demographic Information System (ACDIS) and population‐based HIV survey. Int J Epidemiol. 2021 ; 50 (1): 33 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chimbindi N, Mthiyane N, Birdthistle I, Floyd S, McGrath N, Pillay D, et al. Persistently high incidence of HIV and poor service uptake in adolescent girls and young women in rural KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa prior to DREAMS. PLoS One. 2018 ; 13 (10): e0203193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baisley K, Chimbindi N, Mthiyane N, Floyd S, McGrath N, Pillay D, et al. High HIV incidence and low uptake of HIV prevention services: the context of risk for young male adults prior to DREAMS in rural KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa. PLoS One. 2018 ; 13 (12): e0208689.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathenjwa T, Kim HY, Zuma T, Shahmanesh M, Seeley J, Matthews P, et al. Home‐Based Intervention to Test and Start (HITS) protocol: a cluster‐randomized controlled trial to reduce HIV‐related mortality in men and HIV incidence in women through increased coverage of HIV treatment. BMC Public Health. 2019 ; 19 (1): 969.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim HB, Haile B, Lee T. Promotion and persistence of HIV testing and HIV/AIDS knowledge: evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Ethiopia. Health Econ. 2017 ; 26 (11): 1394 – 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kranzer K, Simms V, Bandason T, Dauya E, McHugh G, Munyati S, et al. Economic incentives for HIV testing by adolescents in Zimbabwe: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet HIV. 2018 ; 5 (2): e79 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnett PG, Sorensen JL, Wong W, Haug NA, Hall SM. Effect of incentives for medication adherence on health care use and costs in methadone patients with HIV. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 ; 100 (1–2): 115 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saxena P, Hall EA, Prendergast M. A randomized study of incentivizing HIV testing for parolees in community aftercare. AIDS Educ Prev. 2016 ; 28 (2): 117 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chamie G, Ndyabakira A, Marson KG, Emperador DM, Kamya MR, Havlir DV, et al. A pilot randomized trial of incentive strategies to promote HIV retesting in rural Uganda. PLoS One. 2020 ; 15 (5): e0233600.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krishnamoorthy Y, Rehman T, Sakthivel M. Effectiveness of financial incentives in achieving UNAID fast‐track 90‐90‐90 and 95‐95‐95 target of HIV care continuum: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. AIDS Behav. 2021 ; 25 (3): 814 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maughan‐Brown B, Smith P, Kuo C, Harrison A, Lurie MN, Bekker LG, et al. A conditional economic incentive fails to improve linkage to care and antiretroviral therapy initiation among HIV‐positive adults in Cape Town, South Africa. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2018 ; 32 (2): 70 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNairy ML, Lamb MR, Gachuhi AB, Nuwagaba‐Biribonwoha H, Burke S, Mazibuko S, et al. Effectiveness of a combination strategy for linkage and retention in adult HIV care in Swaziland: the Link4Health cluster randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2017 ; 14 (11): e1002420.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoy SI, Njau PF, Fahey C, Kapologwe N, Kadiyala S, Jewell NP, et al. Cash vs. food assistance to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV‐infected adults in Tanzania. AIDS. 2017 ; 31 (6): 815 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rigsby MO, Rosen MI, Beauvais JE, Cramer JA, Rainey PM, O'Malley SS, et al. Cue‐dose training with monetary reinforcement: pilot study of an antiretroviral adherence intervention. J Gen Intern Med. 2000 ; 15 (12): 841 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosen MI, Dieckhaus K, McMahon TJ, Valdes B, Petry NM, Cramer J, et al. Improved adherence with contingency management. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2007 ; 21 (1): 30 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorensen JL, Haug NA, Delucchi KL, Gruber V, Kletter E, Batki SL, et al. Voucher reinforcement improves medication adherence in HIV‐positive methadone patients: a randomized trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007 ; 88 (1): 54 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yotebieng M, Thirumurthy H, Moracco KE, Edmonds A, Tabala M, Kawende B, et al. Conditional cash transfers to increase retention in PMTCT care, antiretroviral adherence, and postpartum virological suppression: a randomized controlled trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 ; 72 (Suppl 2): S124 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choko AT, Candfield S, Maheswaran H, Lepine A, Corbett EL, Fielding K. The effect of demand‐side financial incentives for increasing linkage into HIV treatment and voluntary medical male circumcision: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials in low‐ and middle‐income countries. PLoS One. 2018 ; 13 (11): e0207263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoner MCD, Kilburn K, Godfrey‐Faussett P, Ghys P, Pettifor AE. Cash transfers for HIV prevention: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2021 ; 18 (11): e1003866.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bor J, Thirumurthy H. Bridging the efficacy‐effectiveness gap in HIV programs: lessons from economics. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019 ; 82 (Suppl 3): S183 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galárraga O, Sosa‐Rubí SG. Conditional economic incentives to improve HIV prevention and treatment in low‐income and middle‐income countries. Lancet HIV. 2019 ; 6 (10): e705 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choko AT, Fielding K, Johnson CC, Kumwenda MK, Chilongosi R, Baggaley RC, et al. Partner‐delivered HIV self‐test kits with and without financial incentives in antenatal care and index patients with HIV in Malawi: a three‐arm, cluster‐randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2021 ; 9 (7): e977 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sibanda EL, Tumushime M, Mufuka J, Mavedzenge SN, Gudukeya S, Bautista‐Arredondo S, et al. Effect of non‐monetary incentives on uptake of couples' counselling and testing among clients attending mobile HIV services in rural Zimbabwe: a cluster‐randomised trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2017 ; 5 (9): e907 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen JS, Matoga M, Pence BW, Powers KA, Maierhofer CN, Jere E, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating combination detection of HIV in Malawian sexually transmitted infections clinics. J Int AIDS Soc. 2021 ; 24 (4): e25701.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cherutich P, Golden MR, Wamuti B, Richardson BA, Ásbjörnsdóttir KH, Otieno FA, et al. Assisted partner services for HIV in Kenya: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet HIV. 2017 ; 4 (2): e74 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Njuguna IN, Wagner AD, Neary J, Omondi VO, Otieno VA, Orimba A, et al. Financial incentives to increase pediatric HIV testing: a randomized trial. AIDS. 2021 ; 35 (1): 125 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seeley J, Bond V, Yang B, Floyd S, MacLeod D, Viljoen L, et al.; HPTN 071 (PopART) study team. Understanding the time needed to link to care and start ART in seven HPTN 071 (PopART) study communities in Zambia and South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2019 ; 23 (4): 929 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makiwane M, Gumede NA, Makoae M, Vawda M. Family in a changing South Africa: structures, functions and the welfare of members. S Afr Rev Sociol. 2017 ; 48 (2): 49 – 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hudgens MG, Halloran ME. Toward causal inference with interference. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008 ; 103 (482): 832 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalizi CR, Thomas AC. Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociol Methods Res. 2011 ; 40 (2): 211 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Keletso Makofane; Hae‐Young Kim; Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen; Mary T. Bassett; Lisa Berkman; Oluwafemi Adeagbo; Nuala McGrath; Janet Seeley; Maryam Shahmanesh; H. Manisha Yapa; Kobus Herbst; Frank Tanser and Till Bärnighausen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref51"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://resolver.ebsco.com/c/xy5jbn/result?sid=EBSCO:edsdoj&genre=article&issn=17582652&ISBN=&volume=26&issue=8&date=20230801&spage=&pages=&title=Journal of the International AIDS Society&atitle=Impact%20of%20family%20networks%20on%20uptake%20of%20health%20interventions%3A%20evidence%20from%20a%20community%E2%80%90randomized%20control%20trial%20aimed%20at%20increasing%20HIV%20testing%20in%20South%20Africa&aulast=Keletso%20Makofane&id=DOI:10.1002/jia2.26142
    Name: Full Text Finder (for New FTF UI) (s8985755)
    Category: fullText
    Text: Find It @ SCU Libraries
    MouseOverText: Find It @ SCU Libraries
  – Url: https://doaj.org/article/33e7667fa7c0412e97266111841a6c5a
    Name: EDS - DOAJ (s8985755)
    Category: fullText
    Text: View record from DOAJ
    MouseOverText: View record from DOAJ
Header DbId: edsdoj
DbLabel: Directory of Open Access Journals
An: edsdoj.33e7667fa7c0412e97266111841a6c5a
RelevancyScore: 975
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 975.242797851563
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Impact of family networks on uptake of health interventions: evidence from a community‐randomized control trial aimed at increasing HIV testing in South Africa
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Keletso+Makofane%22">Keletso Makofane</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hae‐Young+Kim%22">Hae‐Young Kim</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eric+Tchetgen+Tchetgen%22">Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mary+T%2E+Bassett%22">Mary T. Bassett</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lisa+Berkman%22">Lisa Berkman</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Oluwafemi+Adeagbo%22">Oluwafemi Adeagbo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nuala+McGrath%22">Nuala McGrath</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Janet+Seeley%22">Janet Seeley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maryam+Shahmanesh%22">Maryam Shahmanesh</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22H%2E+Manisha+Yapa%22">H. Manisha Yapa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kobus+Herbst%22">Kobus Herbst</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Frank+Tanser%22">Frank Tanser</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Till+Bärnighausen%22">Till Bärnighausen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: Journal of the International AIDS Society, Vol 26, Iss 8, Pp n/a-n/a (2023)
– Name: Publisher
  Label: Publisher Information
  Group: PubInfo
  Data: Wiley, 2023.
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Year
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: Subset
  Label: Collection
  Group: HoldingsInfo
  Data: LCC:Immunologic diseases. Allergy
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22HIV+epidemiology%22">HIV epidemiology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22testing%22">testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22social+networks%22">social networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22randomized+controlled+trial+%28RCT%29%22">randomized controlled trial (RCT)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22AHRI%22">AHRI</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22social+epidemiology%22">social epidemiology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Immunologic+diseases%2E+Allergy%22">Immunologic diseases. Allergy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22RC581-607%22">RC581-607</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Description
  Group: Ab
  Data: Abstract Introduction While it is widely acknowledged that family relationships can influence health outcomes, their impact on the uptake of individual health interventions is unclear. In this study, we quantified how the efficacy of a randomized health intervention is shaped by its pattern of distribution in the family network. Methods The “Home‐Based Intervention to Test and Start” (HITS) was a 2×2 factorial community‐randomized controlled trial in Umkhanyakude, KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa, embedded in the Africa Health Research Institute's population‐based demographic and HIV surveillance platform (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03757104). The study investigated the impact of two interventions: a financial micro‐incentive and a male‐targeted HIV‐specific decision support programme. The surveillance area was divided into 45 community clusters. Individuals aged ≥15 years in 16 randomly selected communities were offered a micro‐incentive (R50 [$3] food voucher) for rapid HIV testing (intervention arm). Those living in the remaining 29 communities were offered testing only (control arm). Study data were collected between February and November 2018. Using routinely collected data on parents, conjugal partners, and co‐residents, a socio‐centric family network was constructed among HITS‐eligible individuals. Nodes in this network represent individuals and ties represent family relationships. We estimated the effect of offering the incentive to people with and without family members who also received the offer on the uptake of HIV testing. We fitted a linear probability model with robust standard errors, accounting for clustering at the community level. Results Overall, 15,675 people participated in the HITS trial. Among those with no family members who received the offer, the incentive's efficacy was a 6.5 percentage point increase (95% CI: 5.3−7.7). The efficacy was higher among those with at least one family member who received the offer (21.1 percentage point increase (95% CI: 19.9−22.3). The difference in efficacy was statistically significant (21.1–6.5 = 14.6%; 95% CI: 9.3−19.9). Conclusions Micro‐incentives appear to have synergistic effects when distributed within family networks. These effects support family network‐based approaches for the design of health interventions.
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: article
– Name: Format
  Label: File Description
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: electronic resource
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1758-2652
– Name: NoteTitleSource
  Label: Relation
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: https://doaj.org/toc/1758-2652
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jia2.26142
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://doaj.org/article/33e7667fa7c0412e97266111841a6c5a" linkWindow="_blank">https://doaj.org/article/33e7667fa7c0412e97266111841a6c5a</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: edsdoj.33e7667fa7c0412e97266111841a6c5a
PLink https://login.libproxy.scu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&scope=site&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.33e7667fa7c0412e97266111841a6c5a
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jia2.26142
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: HIV epidemiology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: social networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: randomized controlled trial (RCT)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: AHRI
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: social epidemiology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Immunologic diseases. Allergy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: RC581-607
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Impact of family networks on uptake of health interventions: evidence from a community‐randomized control trial aimed at increasing HIV testing in South Africa
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Keletso Makofane
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hae‐Young Kim
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mary T. Bassett
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lisa Berkman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Oluwafemi Adeagbo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nuala McGrath
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Janet Seeley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maryam Shahmanesh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: H. Manisha Yapa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kobus Herbst
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Frank Tanser
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Till Bärnighausen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 17582652
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of the International AIDS Society
              Type: main
ResultId 1