A Study of Financial Incentives to Reduce Plasma HIV RNA Among Patients in Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of financial incentives in HIV care is not well studied. We conducted a single-site study of monetary incentives for viral load suppression, using each patient as his own control. The incentive size ($100/quarter) was designed to be cost-neutral, offsetting estimated downstream costs averted through reduced HIV transmission. Feasibility outcomes were clinic workflow, patient acceptability, and patient comprehension. Although the study was not powered for effectiveness, we also analyzed viral load suppression. Of 80 eligible patients, 77 consented, and 69 had 12 month follow-up. Feasibility outcomes showed minimal impact on patient workflow, near-unanimous patient acceptability, and satisfactory patient comprehension. Among individuals with detectable viral loads pre-intervention, the proportion of undetectable viral load tests increased from 57 to 69 % before versus after the intervention. It is feasible to use financial incentives to reward ART adherence, and to specify the incentive by requiring cost-neutrality and targeting biological outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".