The demand for, and impact of, learning HIV status

Monetary incentive change willingness to learn HIV. – Actual cost ... Data collection process. • The data .... nion/links/00b4953344a9a0cb13000000.pdf? origin= ...
3MB taille 16 téléchargements 317 vues
The demand for, and impact of, learning HIV status!

By Rebecca Thornton (2008)! Dalia Elsabbagh and Aimee Hare!

Outline ! •  Importance of topic! •  The research question! •  The main contribution! •  The data collection method! •  Study design! •  Results: Part 1 ! •  Results: Part 2! •  Conclusions! •  Comments and critiques!

Why is this topic important?! •  Over the last 2 decades, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has influenced millions of individuals.! •  Large negative effects à both personal and societal level! •  Big expenditures à testing, treatment and prevention!

Basic assumptions! •  Two assumptions:! 1)  Many believe it is difficult to get people to learn their HIV status, due to psychological or social barriers. ! 2)  Many believe that the knowledge of HIV will have a positive effect on sexual behaviour that prevents the spread of disease. !

What is the research question?! •  Main idea: ! •  “The demand for, and impact of, learning HIV status.” ! !

!

(1) Do monetary incentives change behaviour with regard to learning your HIV status? !





(2) How does knowing your HIV status change your decisions to purchase condoms at a later stage? !

Theoretical considerations! •  Monetary incentive change willingness to learn HIV! –  Actual cost of the test and transport! –  Societal costs and stigma !

•  Knowing HIV status can change behaviour ! –  Can seek treatment if positive! –  More realistic and effective planning for the future! –  Change sexual behaviour: ! •  Condom use would be empirical question!

Identified problems in the literature! •  Self-reporting ! –  if they want to know their HIV status (Day et. al, 2003; de Graaf Johnson et. al, 2005; Laver, 2001; Yoder et.al 2004)! –  Asking about reported sexual behaviour (Kamenga et. al 1994;

!

!

Weinhardt et. al 1999)!

Identified problems in the literature! •  Self-reporting ! –  if they want to know their HIV status (Day et. al, 2003; de Graaf Johnson et. al, 2005; Laver, 2001; Yoder et.al 2004)! –  Asking about reported sexual behaviour (Kamenga et. al 1994; Weinhardt et. al 1999)!

!

•  Self-selection !

Identified problems in the literature! •  Self-reporting ! –  if they want to know their HIV status (Day et. al, 2003; de Graaf Johnson et. al, 2005; Laver, 2001; Yoder et.al 2004)! –  Asking about reported sexual behaviour (Kamenga et. al 1994; Weinhardt et. al 1999)!

!

•  Self-selection ! ! Solution: Use an RCT à randomization and instrumentation ! !

How do they set up the RCT?! From $0!

Test!

To $3!

Collect results! Temporary test center ! (randomly placed) !

Random draw!

How do they set up the RCT?! (1) Demand for! From $0!

Test!

To $3!

Collect results! Temporary test center ! (randomly placed) !

Random draw!

How do they set up the RCT?! (1) Demand for! From $0!

Test!

To $3!

Collect results! Temporary test center ! (randomly placed) !

Random draw!

How do they set up the RCT?! (1) Demand for!

(2) Impact of!

From $0!

Test!

To $3!

Collect results! Temporary test center ! (randomly placed) !

Random draw!

Who are they looking at? ! Rumphi!

Mchinji! Balaka!

•  120 villages in 3 districts in Malawi! •  25% of each village was tested!

Data collection process! •  The data collection was a part of The Malawi Diffusion and Ideational Change Project (MDICP) ! •  Interviews were conducted in 1998; among them the ever-married women and their husbands were re-interviewed in 1998, 2001 and 2004.! •  In 2004: a sample of young adults were added in each region!

Characteristics of the sample! •  Final sample:! o  2,812 individual in rural Malawi who accepted an HIV test and provided basic demographic data in the 2004 survey, and whose HIV results was not indeterminate !

•  Attrition rates:! o  due to migration (21%) ! o  non acceptance of being re-interviewed (1%)!

•  Test refusal: 9% only ! •  Biasness control !

Baseline characteristics !

Estimation Part 1: RCT!

GotResults: Attendance to the VCT center! Any: received incentives > 0 ! Amt: dollar amount of the incentive! Dist: number of kilometers from the random set VCT centers!

What are the results?!

What are the results?

Results Part 1!

Results Part 1!

(Only part of Table 4)!

Part 2 of the Results! (1) Demand for!

(2) Impact of!

From $0!

Test!

To $3!

Collect results! Temporary test center ! (randomly placed) !

Random draw!

Part 2 of the Results! (1) Demand for!

(2) Impact of!

From $0!

Test!

To $3!

Collect results! Temporary test center ! (randomly placed) !

Random draw!

Part 2 of the Results!

Part 2 of the Results!

Part 2 of the Results! Estimation strategy:!

Part 2 of the Results! Estimation strategy:!

First stage: !

Part 2 of the Results!

(Only part of Table 6)!

Part 2 of the Results!

(Only part of Table 6)!

Part 2 of the Results!

(Only part of Table 7)!

Part 2 of the Results!

(Only part of Table 7)!

Part 2 of the Results!

(Only part of Table 7)!

Part 2 of the Results!

(Only part of Table 7)!

Part 2 of the Results!

(Only part of Table 7)!

Conclusions! •  Incentives:! -  High positive impact on results seeking ! -  Cover real and psychological costs of testing, and provide a public excuse for attending the centers!

•  Distance:! -  High negative impact on results seeking !

•  HIV status:! -  HIV-positives: higher condoms purchase in case of sexual partners for those who knew their statues! -  HIV-negatives: little impact on condoms demand!

Conclusions! •  The strategy might give positive impact of reducing infection among those HIV-positives who has partners ! •  However for this study the effect of learning HIV statues is relatively small! •  Money incentives proved being more effective approach for treatment seeking or testing than other methods (i.e. campaigns)!

Comments and critiques (1)! •  Interpretation of results! –  Significance/not significant ! –  First stage of ‘Got results x HIV’ à weak instruments!

•  Design ! –  STI and HIV incentives in different villages ! –  Induced condom buying à linked to Hawthorne effects!

Comments and critiques (2)! •  The method – Angus Deaton paper à critiques the “gold standard” ! –  Internal validity !

•  External validity à specific to Malawi!

References ! •  Thornton (2008) ‘The demand for, and the impact of, learning HIV status’ American Economic Review. Vol: 98:5, 1829–1863 ! •  Mostly harmless Econometrics: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joshua_Angrist/publication/ 51992844_Mostly_harmless_econometrics_An_empiricist's_compa nion/links/00b4953344a9a0cb13000000.pdf? origin=publication_detail ! •  Deaton (2016) ‘Understanding and Misunderstanding Randomized Controlled Trials http://scholar.princeton.edu/deaton/publications/understandingand-misunderstanding-randomized-controlled-trials !

! Thank you.! !