Selecting the Most Effective Nudge: Evidence from a Large-Scale Experiment on Immunization

arXiv: Applications Pub Date : 2021-04-19 DOI:10.3386/W28726
A. Banerjee, Arun G. Chandrasekhar, S. Dalpath, E. Duflo, J. Floretta, M. Jackson, Harini Kannan, F. Loza, Anirudh Sankar, A. Schrimpf, Maheshwor Shrestha
{"title":"Selecting the Most Effective Nudge: Evidence from a Large-Scale Experiment on Immunization","authors":"A. Banerjee, Arun G. Chandrasekhar, S. Dalpath, E. Duflo, J. Floretta, M. Jackson, Harini Kannan, F. Loza, Anirudh Sankar, A. Schrimpf, Maheshwor Shrestha","doi":"10.3386/W28726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We evaluate a large-scale set of interventions to increase demand for immunization in Haryana, India. The policies under consideration include the two most frequently discussed tools--reminders and incentives--as well as an intervention inspired by the networks literature. We cross-randomize whether (a) individuals receive SMS reminders about upcoming vaccination drives; (b) individuals receive incentives for vaccinating their children; (c) influential individuals (information hubs, trusted individuals, or both) are asked to act as \"ambassadors\" receiving regular reminders to spread the word about immunization in their community. By taking into account different versions (or \"dosages\") of each intervention, we obtain 75 unique policy combinations. We develop a new statistical technique--a smart pooling and pruning procedure--for finding a best policy from a large set, which also determines which policies are effective and the effect of the best policy. We proceed in two steps. First, we use a LASSO technique to collapse the data: we pool dosages of the same treatment if the data cannot reject that they had the same impact, and prune policies deemed ineffective. Second, using the remaining (pooled) policies, we estimate the effect of the best policy, accounting for the winner's curse. The key outcomes are (i) the number of measles immunizations and (ii) the number of immunizations per dollar spent. The policy that has the largest impact (information hubs, SMS reminders, incentives that increase with each immunization) increases the number of immunizations by 44% relative to the status quo. The most cost-effective policy (information hubs, SMS reminders, no incentives) increases the number of immunizations per dollar by 9.1%.","PeriodicalId":409996,"journal":{"name":"arXiv: Applications","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv: Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W28726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

We evaluate a large-scale set of interventions to increase demand for immunization in Haryana, India. The policies under consideration include the two most frequently discussed tools--reminders and incentives--as well as an intervention inspired by the networks literature. We cross-randomize whether (a) individuals receive SMS reminders about upcoming vaccination drives; (b) individuals receive incentives for vaccinating their children; (c) influential individuals (information hubs, trusted individuals, or both) are asked to act as "ambassadors" receiving regular reminders to spread the word about immunization in their community. By taking into account different versions (or "dosages") of each intervention, we obtain 75 unique policy combinations. We develop a new statistical technique--a smart pooling and pruning procedure--for finding a best policy from a large set, which also determines which policies are effective and the effect of the best policy. We proceed in two steps. First, we use a LASSO technique to collapse the data: we pool dosages of the same treatment if the data cannot reject that they had the same impact, and prune policies deemed ineffective. Second, using the remaining (pooled) policies, we estimate the effect of the best policy, accounting for the winner's curse. The key outcomes are (i) the number of measles immunizations and (ii) the number of immunizations per dollar spent. The policy that has the largest impact (information hubs, SMS reminders, incentives that increase with each immunization) increases the number of immunizations by 44% relative to the status quo. The most cost-effective policy (information hubs, SMS reminders, no incentives) increases the number of immunizations per dollar by 9.1%.
选择最有效的助推:来自大规模免疫实验的证据
我们评估了一套大规模的干预措施,以增加印度哈里亚纳邦的免疫需求。正在考虑的政策包括两种最常讨论的工具——提醒和激励——以及受网络文献启发的干预措施。我们交叉随机选择(a)个人是否收到关于即将到来的疫苗接种活动的短信提醒;(b)为子女接种疫苗的个人获得奖励;(c)请有影响力的个人(信息中心、受信任的个人,或两者兼而有之)担任“大使”,定期收到提醒,在其社区宣传免疫接种。通过考虑每种干预措施的不同版本(或“剂量”),我们得到了75种独特的政策组合。我们开发了一种新的统计技术——智能池和修剪过程——用于从大集合中找到最佳策略,这也决定了哪些策略是有效的以及最佳策略的效果。我们分两步进行。首先,我们使用LASSO技术来分解数据:如果数据无法拒绝它们具有相同的影响,我们将相同处理的剂量集中在一起,并修剪被认为无效的政策。其次,使用剩余的(汇集的)策略,我们估计最佳策略的效果,考虑赢家的诅咒。主要成果是(一)麻疹免疫接种的数量和(二)每一美元的免疫接种数量。影响最大的政策(信息中心、短信提醒、奖励措施随着每次免疫接种的增加而增加)使免疫接种数量相对于现状增加44%。最具成本效益的政策(信息中心、短信提醒、无奖励)使每美元的免疫接种数量增加9.1%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信