. 2020 Jan 17;2020(1):CD011895. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011895.pub2

Summary of findings 3. Financial incentives compared to usual practice.

Comparison 3: financial incentives compared to usual practice
Patient or population: adolescents  Setting: UK  intervention: financial incentive^a  Comparison: usual practice
Outcomes	Impact				№ of participants  (studies)	Certainty of the evidence  (GRADE)**
	*Absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect  (95% CI)	Narrative results
	With usual practice	With financial incentives
Uptake of HPV vaccine^b	196 per 1000	284 per 1000  (206 to 390)	RR 1.45  (1.05 to 1.99)	Financial incentives may improve uptake of HPV vaccine compared to usual practice.	500  (1)^c	⊕⊕⊝⊝  Low^d,e
CI: confidence interval; HPV: human papillomavirus; RR: risk ratio. *The anticipated absolute effect in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the likelihood of being vaccinated in the usual practice group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.: High certainty: this research provides a very good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different^† is low. Moderate certainty: this research provides a good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different^† is moderate. Low certainty: this research provides some indication of the likely effect. However, the likelihood that it will be substantially different^† is high. Very low certainty:** this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different^† is very high. ^†Substantially different = a large enough difference that it might affect a decision.

^aThe financial incentive involved an offer of shopping vouchers worth GBP 45 upon completion of 3 HPV vaccination doses.

^bThe lag‐time between delivery of the intervention and assessment of outcomes was one to seven months. Invitation letters promising incentives were sent in February‐March of 2010 and vaccination sessions were conducted between March and September 2010

^cMantzari 2015 (randomised trial).  ^d Downgraded one level for study limitations (unclear risk of bias in the included study).  ^e Downgraded one level for imprecision of findings.