PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Laktabai, J. AU - Kimachas, E. AU - Kipkoech, J. AU - Menya, D. AU - Arthur, D. AU - Zhou, Y. AU - Chepkwony, T. AU - Abel, L. AU - Robie, E. AU - Amunga, M. AU - Ambani, G. AU - Woldeghebriel, M. AU - Garber, E. AU - Eze, Nwamaka AU - Mudabai, Pamela AU - Gallis, J.A. AU - Fashanu, Chizoba AU - Saran, I. AU - Woolsey, A. AU - Visser, T. AU - Turner, E.L. AU - O’Meara, W. Prudhomme TI - A cluster-randomized trial of client and provider-directed financial interventions to align incentives with appropriate case management in retail medicine outlets: results of the TESTsmART Trial in western Kenya AID - 10.1101/2023.09.14.23295586 DP - 2023 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2023.09.14.23295586 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/15/2023.09.14.23295586.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/15/2023.09.14.23295586.full AB - ACTs are responsible for a substantial proportion of the global reduction in malaria mortality over the last ten years. These reductions would not have been possible without publicly-funded subsidies making these drugs accessible and affordable in the private sector. However, inexpensive ACTs available in retail outlets have contributed substantially to their overconsumption. We test an innovative, scalable, and sustainable strategy to target ACT subsidies to clients with a confirmatory diagnosis. We supportead point-of-care malaria testing (mRDTs) in 39 retail medicine outlets in western Kenya and randomized them to three study arms; control arm offering subsidized RDT testing for 0.4USD, client-directed intervention where all clients who received a positive RDT at the outlet were eligible for a free (fully subsidized) first-line ACT, and a combined client and provider directed intervention where clients with a positive RDT were eligible for free ACT and outlets received 0.1USD for every RDT performed. Our primary outcome was the proportion of ACT dispensed to individuals with a positive diagnostic test. Secondary outcomes included proportion of clients tested at the outlet and adherence to diagnostic test results. 43% of clients chose to test at the outlet. Test results informed treatment decisions and resulted in targeting of ACTs to confirmed malaria cases – 25.3% of test-negative clients purchased an ACT compared to 75% of untested clients. Client-directed and client+provider-directed interventions did not offer further improvements, compared to the control arm, in testing rates (RD=0.09, 95%CI:-0.08,0.26) or dispensing of ACTs to test-positive clients (RD=0.01,95% CI:-0.14, 0.16). Clients were often unaware of the price they paid for the ACT leading to uncertainty in whether the ACT subsidy was passed on to the client. We conclude that mRDTs could reduce ACT overconsumption in the private retail sector, but incentive structures are difficult to scale and their value to private providers is uncertain.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04428307)Clinical Protocols NA Funding StatementResearch reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AI141444. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, execution or analysis of the data.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was reviewed and approved by Duke University Institutional Review Board (Pro00104256) and Moi University Institutional Research and Ethics Committee (IREC/2019/304). The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04428307).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableDataset will be published in https://research.repository.duke.edu/NA