Winnie K Luseno1, Kavita Singh2, Sudhanshu Handa2, Chirayath Suchindran2. 1. Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), 1516 East Franklin Street, Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Department of Public Policy, College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA and Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USADepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), 1516 East Franklin Street, Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Department of Public Policy, College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA and Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA wluseno@gmail.com. 2. Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), 1516 East Franklin Street, Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Department of Public Policy, College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA and Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USADepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), 1516 East Franklin Street, Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Department of Public Policy, College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA and Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary goal was to examine whether Malawi Social Cash Transfer Pilot Scheme, initially implemented in a rural district in central Malawi, improved health outcomes for children aged 6-17. Secondary goals were to examine the effects of individual child- (orphan status and gender) and household-level factors (number of working-age adults and sick adults) on health outcomes. Another secondary goal was to examine whether orphan status modified the cash transfer effect on health outcomes. METHODS: This multilevel study used panel data collected in 2007-08 from a randomized controlled evaluation study of phase one of the programme. The analyses included 1197 children aged 6-17 in 486 households. The four outcomes of interest were: illness in the past month, illness that stopped normal activities in the past month, missing school due to illness or injury in the past month and health care use for worst illness in the past year. FINDINGS: Approximately two-thirds of children in cash transfer eligible households were orphans. Compared with children in non-beneficiary households, those in beneficiary households had a 37% lower odds of child illness (P<0.05), 42% lower odds of illness that stopped normal activities (P<0.01) and substantially higher odds of utilizing health services for a serious illness (odds ratio=10.98; P<0.01). An increase in the household number of working-age adults was associated with 34% lower odds of child illness (P<0.01). An increase in the household number of sick adults increased the odds of child illness by 97% (P<0.01) and serious illness by 49% (P<0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed by orphan status and child's gender. Consistent differential programme effects by orphan status were not observed. CONCLUSION: Unconditional cash transfer programmes to poor households have the potential to improve health outcomes for all vulnerable children aged 6-17. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
OBJECTIVE: The primary goal was to examine whether Malawi Social Cash Transfer Pilot Scheme, initially implemented in a rural district in central Malawi, improved health outcomes for children aged 6-17. Secondary goals were to examine the effects of individual child- (orphan status and gender) and household-level factors (number of working-age adults and sick adults) on health outcomes. Another secondary goal was to examine whether orphan status modified the cash transfer effect on health outcomes. METHODS: This multilevel study used panel data collected in 2007-08 from a randomized controlled evaluation study of phase one of the programme. The analyses included 1197 children aged 6-17 in 486 households. The four outcomes of interest were: illness in the past month, illness that stopped normal activities in the past month, missing school due to illness or injury in the past month and health care use for worst illness in the past year. FINDINGS: Approximately two-thirds of children in cash transfer eligible households were orphans. Compared with children in non-beneficiary households, those in beneficiary households had a 37% lower odds of child illness (P<0.05), 42% lower odds of illness that stopped normal activities (P<0.01) and substantially higher odds of utilizing health services for a serious illness (odds ratio=10.98; P<0.01). An increase in the household number of working-age adults was associated with 34% lower odds of child illness (P<0.01). An increase in the household number of sick adults increased the odds of child illness by 97% (P<0.01) and serious illness by 49% (P<0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed by orphan status and child's gender. Consistent differential programme effects by orphan status were not observed. CONCLUSION: Unconditional cash transfer programmes to poor households have the potential to improve health outcomes for all vulnerable children aged 6-17. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Authors: Andrew Hall; Veronica Tuffrey; Tamiru Kassa; Tsegaye Demissie; Tedbabe Degefie; Seung Lee Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: George C Patton; Carolyn Coffey; Susan M Sawyer; Russell M Viner; Dagmar M Haller; Krishna Bose; Theo Vos; Jane Ferguson; Colin D Mathers Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fiona M Gore; Paul J N Bloem; George C Patton; Jane Ferguson; Véronique Joseph; Carolyn Coffey; Susan M Sawyer; Colin D Mathers Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas M Crea; Andrew D Reynolds; Aakanksha Sinha; Jeffrey W Eaton; Laura A Robertson; Phyllis Mushati; Lovemore Dumba; Gideon Mavise; J C Makoni; Christina M Schumacher; Constance A Nyamukapa; Simon Gregson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David Ayuku; Lonnie Embleton; Julius Koech; Lukoye Atwoli; Liangyuan Hu; Samuel Ayaya; Joseph Hogan; Winstone Nyandiko; Rachel Vreeman; Allan Kamanda; Paula Braitstein Journal: BMC Int Health Hum Rights Date: 2014-09-20