Back

Randomized incentives to increase participation in COVID testing in rural Kenya

Chieng, B.; Crider, Y.; Aitken, C.; Araka, S. B.; Kihoro, R. W.; Kanyi, H.; Powers, J. E.; Tan, B.; Paulos, A. P.; Gomes, A. S.; Nekesa, C.; Nekesa, C.; Bwire, B.; Allela, D. O.; Kiiru, J. N.; Kremer, M.; Njenga, S.; Pickering, A.

2026-02-22 public and global health
10.64898/2026.02.15.26346122 medRxiv
Show abstract

Low participation in public health testing can lead to biased estimates of disease prevalence and inefficient allocation of public health resources. We evaluated the impact of monetary incentives and revisits on participation in door-to-door COVID testing in rural western Kenya. We conducted a cross-sectional study of all residents in 12 villages in rural western Kenya. We offered an incentive of KSh 200 (1.85 USD), KSh 350 (3.23 USD), or KSh 700 (6.47 USD), randomized at the household level, for each household member >3 months old who participated in COVID testing. Among 7,049 individuals, 5,659 individuals consented to testing. Overall, after revisits, 78.2% consented in the KSh 200 group, 80.6% in the KSh 350 group, and 81.9% in the KSh 700 group. Among individuals offered KSh 200, revisiting increased the consent rate from 68.1% to 78.2%, or 7.3 percentage points higher than the first visit consent rate in the KSh 700 group. Participation was very high (96.9%) among available individuals, but 17.2% of individuals were never available. Offering KSh 200 minimized the cost per consenting individual in our sample, even with revisits, compared to higher amounts. However, individuals in the KSh 700 group were slightly more likely to test positive, which suggests these individuals are missed at lower incentive amounts. Overall 0.3% (95% CI: 0.2, 0.5) tested positive for current infection by qPCR on nasal swabs, and 8.6% (7.7, 9.6) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies by ELISA on dried blood spots. Accounting for nonresponse bias suggests this COVID population burden may be an underestimate. Our findings suggest incentives can increase participation in household door-to-door public health surveillance testing and may improve disease prevalence estimates by reducing nonresponse bias. However, high incentives may not be cost effective when low incentives motivate very high levels of participation. Significance StatementAchieving high levels of participation in testing can inform public health strategies for reducing the spread of infectious diseases. Cash incentives are one tool for increasing participation, but there is little evidence on the effectiveness of this approach in low-resource settings. We find that cash incentives increase participation in free COVID-19 testing in rural Kenya and may reduce nonresponse bias.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.0%
2
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.1%
3
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.2%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.1%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.7%
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 19%
4.7%
7
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 25%
2.6%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.5%
10
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.4%
12
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
13
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.6%
18
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
19
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
20
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
21
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
22
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
23
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
24
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
25
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
26
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
27
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
28
Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
29
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
30
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.7%