The<i>Empower Nudge</i>lottery to increase dual protection use: a proof-of-concept randomised pilot trial in South Africa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to measure the preliminary efficacy of a pilot intervention, grounded in behavioural economics, increasing adherence of dual protection (simultaneous use of effective modern contraception and a barrier method, such as a condom) to protect against HIV, other sexually transmitted infections, and unintended pregnancy. Between 2015 and 2016, 100 women aged 18-40 years, seeking post-abortion care in Cape Town, South Africa were recruited to Empower Nudge, a randomised controlled trial to test a lottery incentive intervention designed to increase dual protection. At baseline, the mean age of participants was 27 years; 82% of them were from South Africa; 58% self-identified as Black African; average education completed was 11.7 years. At three months, assignment to the lottery intervention was associated with higher odds of returning for study visits (OR: 6.0; 95%CI: 2.45 to 14.7, p < 0.01), higher condom use (OR: 4.5; 95%CI: 1.43 to 14.1; p < 0.05), and higher use of dual protection (OR: 3.16; 95%CI: 1.01 to 9.9; p < 0.05). Only 60% of the study population returned after three months and only 38% returned after six months. Women who receive post-abortion care represent a neglected population with an urgent need for HIV and pregnancy prevention. Dual protection is a critically important strategy for this population. Lottery-based behavioural economics strategies may offer possible ways to increase dual protection use in this population. Further research with larger samples, longer exposure time, and more sites is needed to establish fully powered efficacy of lottery incentives for dual protection; using objective verification for monitoring.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it