ICT effectiveness in transmitting information about optimal agricultural input use to Nepalese farmers

Last registered on October 18, 2021


Trial Information

General Information

ICT effectiveness in transmitting information about optimal agricultural input use to Nepalese farmers
Initial registration date
October 15, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
October 18, 2021, 9:53 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.



Primary Investigator

McGill University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
There has been much optimism about the potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to provide agricultural extension services to remote households. Yet, little is known about how different communication methods fare, and, moreover, whether different segments of the population adopt information communicated via different means equally. We conduct a randomized control trial comparing the effectiveness of three ICTs — radio, voice response messages, and a smartphone app — with a traditional extension training in communicating fertilizer management practices across four districts in rural Nepal.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Harou, Aurelie. 2021. "ICT effectiveness in transmitting information about optimal agricultural input use to Nepalese farmers." AEA RCT Registry. October 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.8384-1.0
Experimental Details


Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The main outcome variables of interest are :
a) farmer knowledge on which fertilizers and seeds they should optimally apply on their rice plots;
b) fertilizers applied on their rice plots (and potentially other plots to measure spillover effects?);
c) yields obtained on rice plots (and other plots?);
d) expected returns to improved fertilizer and seeds for rice;
e) trust of information coming from different sources.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In four districts in Nepal, we conduct a survey of all 105 cooperatives growing maize. From this survey, we randomly choose 15 cooperatives per district, totalling 60 cooperatives invited to participate in the study. Randomization of the treatment arms was done at the cooperative level: 10 cooperatives were randomly assigned to each of our four treatments. Twenty cooperatives were randomly selected into the control group in which farmers received no information on fertilizer application timing.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Farmer (maize) cooperative
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
150 IVR; 150 Traditional extension; 150 Radio program; 150 remotely accessible phone app
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials