x

Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
Social Norms and Beliefs about Health Benefits: Evidence from an RCT in arsenic affected areas in India
Last registered on March 30, 2020

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Social Norms and Beliefs about Health Benefits: Evidence from an RCT in arsenic affected areas in India
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0005477
Initial registration date
February 20, 2020
Last updated
March 30, 2020 12:18 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
PI Affiliation
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
Additional Trial Information
Status
On going
Start date
2019-12-24
End date
2020-04-30
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Arsenic-contaminated groundwater is consumed by approximately 100 million people worldwide and has severe health consequences. Using an RCT conducted in Bihar, India, we test the effectiveness of an information-based intervention, focused on spreading awareness about arsenic in the groundwater and mitigation techniques. We use this context to study how social norms and beliefs affect how people act on new information about safe water use. Despite the importance of the role of social norms and beliefs in influencing behavior, there has been little research using them to understand information interventions better. We aim to be one of the firsts in connecting these two lines of research.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Priyam, Shambhavi, Daniel Salicath and Matthias Sutter. 2020. "Social Norms and Beliefs about Health Benefits: Evidence from an RCT in arsenic affected areas in India." AEA RCT Registry. March 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5477-1.1.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2019-12-24
Intervention End Date
2020-02-02
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Water usage and arsenic levels of primary drinking water.
Knowledge of arsenic.
Health and productivity.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
See preanalysis plan
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Control group: In the control for this experiment, the household heads are individually shown an audio-visual unrelated to arsenic or water. The control is given information about tiger conservation. Their water test results are not shared with them.

Individual information: As part of this treatment, the audio-visual containing arsenic related information is shown to each household head individually in their homes. Their primary drinking water is tested for arsenic, and they are informed of the results.

Group information: In this treatment, the audio-visual containing arsenic related information is shown to a group of household heads. We put together three household heads, and they are shown the video at the same time and place. Their primary drinking water is tested for arsenic, and they are informed of the results individually.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
The experiment follows a clustered randomization design where we first randomly select villages from a district, and then randomly select households in that village to be part of the study. The assignment of treatments was predetermined using STATA randomization. See preanalysis plan for more details
Randomization Unit
Villages
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
150 Villages
Sample size: planned number of observations
2750 heads of households
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
50 villages control, 50 villages treatment 1, 50 villages treatment 2
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
For this experiment we use a clustered randomization design, clustering at the village level, and a sample size of 750 individual households in each treatment was selected based on power calculations. As per the calculations, a cluster size of 15, and 50 such clusters were assigned to each of the treatments and a control. Thus, a total sample of 2,250 households would be sufficient to detect an effect size of 2.34 SD, with 80% power. The effect size was based on Madajewicz et al. (2007).
Supporting Documents and Materials

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Cologne
IRB Approval Date
2020-02-05
IRB Approval Number
19027DS
IRB Name
IFMR Human Subjects Committee
IRB Approval Date
2019-12-02
IRB Approval Number
IRB00007107
Analysis Plan

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)
REPORTS & OTHER MATERIALS