The purpose of this study is to provide scientific data to determine how potential HIV cases respond when an incentive is given to follow through with their testing commitment. This is of Public Health importance because the only way interceptive measures can be instituted is if Health Care Administration has data by which to plan an intervention. As such, taking responsibility to continue with testing cannot be over emphasized.
The inclusion criterion for participating in the study was can be discerned as undiagnosed clients who through a life style assessment expressed symptoms consistent with the Center of Disease Control guidelines and were classified ‘at risk’ of contacting the disease. Besides they had to have gone to the Emergency Department and referred as potential candidates.
Financial incentives offered
It is clear that the independent variable financial incentive is essential to the study as for clients to return the next for the next visit. A comparative analysis of clients who were not offered money and followed through with their testing was evaluated as against those who were offered a $25 incentive. The research design consisted of three consecutive six month period. Financial Incentives were not offered during the first and third six month, but on the second. As such the researchers used the first and third six month period as a control mechanism in their data collection process.
This study can be referred to as a comparative analysis which adopts elements of scientific research designs. Comparative analyses are usually controlled studies. It is evidenced in this research utilizing six month phases to reflect clients who were offered financial incentives in the second six months against those who were nonrecepients of financial incentives during the first and third six month periods.