THO2010DEM

One reason why attendance did not vary with prior

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ason why attendance did not vary with prior beliefs may be that respondents’ priors may be unreliable. There is evidence that respondents had a tendency to overestimate their own likelihood of HIV infection (Philip Anglewicz and HansPeter Kohler 2006; Bignami–Van Assche et al. 2005; see also Table 10 and discussion below). Those who had never had sex would have little reason to attend the VCT center, except to redeem a monetary voucher. Although not statistically significant, the impact of receiving an incentive is much more elastic among unmarried respondents who report never having had sex, who were 11 percentage points more likely to attend a center (and redeem their voucher) than those who ever had sex, and who also received an incentive (Table 5, column 2). Alternatively, those who were married in 2004 were 5.1 percentage points more likely to return for their results than those who were not married (Table 5, column 1). Receiving a voucher may have provided justification for some individuals to attend the center. For example, because of historical gender restrictions within Islam, women in Balaka may have more travel restrictions, preventing them from easily attending the results centers.11 In Balaka, men receiving no incentive were significantly more likely to attend the center than women receiving no incentive. However, men and women receiving an incentive are equally likely to attend, closing the gender gap of attendance in Balaka (Table 5, column 3). In Mchinji and Rumphi there were no differential impacts of the incentive on attendance between men and women. Monetary incentives were also especially important for those living farther from the VCT center: for those living over 1.5 kilometers from the HIV results center, there was an additional impact of receiving an incentive, increasing attendance by 3.7 percentage points, although the difference is not statistically significant (Table 5, column 4). This effect can also be seen in Figure 4, panel B, which graphs the impact of distance on attendance among those receiving any incentive and those receiving no incentive....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online