being offered for _free_ . It is de-meaned and interacted with each treatment indicator, so that the estimated coefficients for LARC prices can be interpreted as the average treatment effects.<sup>15</sup> We then present the effects of counseling and their interaction with discounts for LARCs by running the same regression model separately for MiM, IDM, and SDM. Tests of equality of means across IDM and SDM for each level of discount yield the causal effect of IDM on contraceptive take-up, compared to SDM.

Table 1: Impacts of price discounts for LARCs on method adoption.

||(1)<br>**Adopted a LARC**|(2)<br>**Adopted a SARC**|(3)<br>**Adopted nothing**|
|---|---|---|---|
|LARC: Low|0.160|0.005|-0.165|
||(0.048)|(0.024)|(0.049)|
|LARC: Mid|0.132|-0.032|-0.100|
||(0.047)|(0.021)|(0.048)|
|High LARC price mean:|0.321|0.058|0.622|
|Diference: _β_<sup>_LARC_</sup><br>_Low_<br>_−β_<sup>_LARC_</sup><br>_Mid_|0.027|0.037|-0.065|
|p-value|0.495|0.031|0.110|
|Obs.|784|784|784|

Notes: Robust standard error in parentheses; Free/low price group were offered LARCs at CFA 0 or 150, Mid group at CFA 1,000 or 2,000, and the control group at CFA 4,000; column 1 shows the results of estimation on the likelihood of clients having adopted a LARC during the study period, column 2 a SARC, and column 3 neither a LARC nor a SARC; all columns show the base model with only the LARC and SARC price indicators centered and fully interacted so that coefficients on the main effects show average treatment effects.

# **4.2 Main results**

Tables A2 and A3 show that client characteristics are balanced across randomly assigned LARC prices and counseling interventions, respectively. Table 1 presents the overall impacts of offering discounts for LARCs on our three primary outcomes, averaged over counseling conditions and SARC prices: at the highest price in our study, i.e. CFA 4,000, 32% of the clients adopt a LARC (column 1). Offering LARCs for free or at a very small price (CFA 150) increases LARC adoption by 16 pp - a 50% increase. Smaller discounts (CFA 2,000 or 1,000) are almost equally effective in increasing LARC uptake.<sup>16</sup> Discounts for LARCs do not affect the uptake of SARCs (column 2), which implies that the large gains in LARC uptake are mainly obtained from a similar reduction in the share of clients who would have left HGOPY having adopted no modern method (column 3).

> 15We treat the SARC price indicator as a covariate rather than a treatment variable, because, as explained in footnote 5, we discontinued randomizing clients to _free_ or _full price_ SARCs towards the end of the pilot period. Table A5 shows, in the sub-sample that received random SARC discounts, that offering SARCs for free had no discernible effect on the take-up of SARCs or LARCs - either directly or in interaction with discounts for LARCs.

> 16Tables A6-A8 assess the sensitivity of these findings. Examining the granular impact at each price level, including additional controls using a double selection lasso estimator, or adding fully-interacted month fixed effects do not alter the conclusions. Contrasting Table A7 with Table 1 reveals that the impacts grow in the days following the initial visit, during which time some clients, who had initially adopted no method or a SARC, return to adopt a LARC.

10