x

NEW UPDATE: Completed trials may now upload and register supplementary documents (e.g. null results reports, populated pre-analysis plans, or post-trial results reports) in the Post Trial section under Reports, Papers, & Other Materials.
Optimal Design to Motivate Blood Donation
Last registered on November 01, 2015

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Optimal Design to Motivate Blood Donation
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0000935
Initial registration date
November 01, 2015
Last updated
November 01, 2015 2:15 PM EST
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Maryland
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Maryland
PI Affiliation
University of Maryland
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2014-12-20
End date
2015-01-04
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Using a randomized field experiment involving 80,000 participants, we study how mobile messaging can leverage recipients’ social ties to encourage blood donation.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Gao, Guodong, Ginger Jin and Tianshu Sun. 2015. "Optimal Design to Motivate Blood Donation." AEA RCT Registry. November 01. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.935-2.0.
Former Citation
Gao, Guodong et al. 2015. "Optimal Design to Motivate Blood Donation." AEA RCT Registry. November 01. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/935/history/5854.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
We send different versions of mobile message to past blood donors, encouraging them to donate whole blood at a local bloodmobile. Subjects that show up at a local bloodmobile are also requested to fill out a survey.
Intervention Start Date
2014-12-20
Intervention End Date
2015-01-04
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
We focus on three behavioral outcomes: (1) whether a subject comes to a bloodmobile to donate blood; (2) where the subject brings friend(s) to donate together; and (3) the amount of blood donated by the subject and his/her friend(s). We are also interested in how subjects perceive the cost of donation and how communicate blood donation experience with friends, as reflected in the survey questionnaire.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
We started by choosing participants from past donors of the blood bank based on three criteria: first, the blood donated by the particular donor must pass a battery of blood test, which is important because the bank aims to increase supply of qualified blood; second, the donor has not donated in the last six months, as a 1998 nationwide law disallows any donor from donating whole blood twice within six months; third, the donor has made at least one donation in the past 25 months. Condition on 80,000 participants that satisfy these criteria, we randomly assign them into seven test groups. The first one is the control group with 14,000 subjects who received no message from the blood bank. The remaining six groups (with 11,000 subjects in each) received different mobile messages.
Experimental Design Details
We started by choosing participants from past donors of the blood bank based on three criteria: first, the blood donated by the particular donor must pass a battery of blood test, which is important because the bank aims to increase supply of qualified blood; second, the donor has not donated in the last six months, as a 1998 nationwide law disallows any donor from donating whole blood twice within six months; third, the donor has made at least one donation in the past 25 months. Condition on 80,000 participants that satisfy these criteria, we randomly assign them into seven test groups. The first one is the control group with 14,000 subjects who received no message from the blood bank. The remaining six groups (with 11,000 subjects in each) received different mobile messages. In particular, message 1 only reminded subjects to donate, message 2 added an explicit reward for donation (a supermarket voucher that is worth 30-50 RMB). The average daily wage in this city in 2014 was about 100 RMB, so the reward amount is non-trivial. Neither message 1 nor 2 mentions group donation. In message 3, we reminded the subject to donate with friend(s), but did not mention the economic reward for donation; message 4 included both a reminder for donating with friend(s) and the economic reward. Note that in both message 2 and message 4, the reward is presented as reward per donor, without any condition on whether the donor comes alone or with friend(s). Message 5 is similar to message 4, except that we made the reward conditional on donating with friends (“…if you and your friend(s) donate together, each one of you will get a reward of…”). Message 6 is similar to message 4, but highlighted additional gifts available for all donors that come in group (“… you will get a reward of … upon donation. If you and your friend(s) donate together, each one of you will get an additional gift.”).
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer.
Randomization Unit
Randomization is done by individual.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
Total 80,000 individuals. No clustering.
Sample size: planned number of observations
80,000.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Control group: 14,000 individuals.
Treatment group 1-6: 11,000 individuals each.
Total: 80,000 individuals.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The existing literature suggests a response rate around 1%. Under the null hypothesis of response rate equal to 0%, we compute that a 1% response rate will generate a t-statistics of 10.5 if the sample size is 11000. Under the null hypothesis of response rate equal to 0.5%, we compute that a 1% response rate will generate a t-statistics of 5.27 if the sample size is 11000. If we compare two samples with response rate 1% and 2%, the t-statistics of their mean comparison will be 6.11 if the sample size is 11000 in both samples.
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB at the University of Maryland, College Park
IRB Approval Date
2014-12-11
IRB Approval Number
691406-2
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