Lisa Hjelm1, Sudhanshu Handa2, Jacobus de Hoop3, Tia Palermo4. 1. UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, Piazza SS, Annunziata, 12, 50122 Florence, Italy. Electronic address: lhjelm@unicef.org. 2. UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, Piazza SS, Annunziata, 12, 50122 Florence, Italy; Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 206 West Franklin St., Rm. 208, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA. Electronic address: shanda@email.unc.edu. 3. UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, Piazza SS, Annunziata, 12, 50122 Florence, Italy. Electronic address: jdehoop@unicef.org. 4. UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, Piazza SS, Annunziata, 12, 50122 Florence, Italy. Electronic address: tmpalermo@unicef.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Poverty is a chronic stressor that can lead to poor physical and mental health. This study examines whether two similar government poverty alleviation programs reduced the levels of perceived stress and poverty among poor households in Zambia. METHOD: Secondary data from two cluster randomized controlled trials were used to evaluate the impacts of two unconditional cash transfer programs in Zambia. Participants were interviewed at baseline and followed over 36 months. Perceived stress among female caregivers was assessed using the Cohen Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Poverty indicators assessed included per capita expenditure, household food security, and (nonproductive) asset ownership. Fixed effects and ordinary least squares regressions were run, controlling for age, education, marital status, household demographics, location, and poverty status at baseline. RESULTS: Cash transfers did not reduce perceived stress but improved economic security (per capita consumption expenditure, food insecurity, and asset ownership). Among these poverty indicators, only food insecurity was associated with perceived stress. Age and education showed no consistent association with stress, whereas death of a household member was associated with higher stress levels. CONCLUSION: In this setting, perceived stress was not reduced by a positive income shock but was correlated with food insecurity and household deaths, suggesting that food security is an important stressor in this context. Although the program did reduce food insecurity, the size of the reduction was not enough to generate a statistically significant change in stress levels. The measure used in this study appears not to be correlated with characteristics to which it has been linked in other settings, and thus, further research is needed to examine whether this widely used perceived stress measure appropriately captures the concept of perceived stress in this population.
INTRODUCTION: Poverty is a chronic stressor that can lead to poor physical and mental health. This study examines whether two similar government poverty alleviation programs reduced the levels of perceived stress and poverty among poor households in Zambia. METHOD: Secondary data from two cluster randomized controlled trials were used to evaluate the impacts of two unconditional cash transfer programs in Zambia. Participants were interviewed at baseline and followed over 36 months. Perceived stress among female caregivers was assessed using the Cohen Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Poverty indicators assessed included per capita expenditure, household food security, and (nonproductive) asset ownership. Fixed effects and ordinary least squares regressions were run, controlling for age, education, marital status, household demographics, location, and poverty status at baseline. RESULTS:Cash transfers did not reduce perceived stress but improved economic security (per capita consumption expenditure, food insecurity, and asset ownership). Among these poverty indicators, only food insecurity was associated with perceived stress. Age and education showed no consistent association with stress, whereas death of a household member was associated with higher stress levels. CONCLUSION: In this setting, perceived stress was not reduced by a positive income shock but was correlated with food insecurity and household deaths, suggesting that food security is an important stressor in this context. Although the program did reduce food insecurity, the size of the reduction was not enough to generate a statistically significant change in stress levels. The measure used in this study appears not to be correlated with characteristics to which it has been linked in other settings, and thus, further research is needed to examine whether this widely used perceived stress measure appropriately captures the concept of perceived stress in this population.
Authors: Pamela M Murnane; Joshua D Miller; Emily L Tuthill; Shalean M Collins; Torsten B Neilands; Maricianah Onono; Craig R Cohen; Sheri D Weiser; Mark L Laudenslager; Sera L Young Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-06
Authors: Henry J Whittle; Lila A Sheira; William R Wolfe; Edward A Frongillo; Kartika Palar; Daniel Merenstein; Tracey E Wilson; Adebola Adedimeji; Kathleen M Weber; Adaora A Adimora; Ighovwerha Ofotokun; Lisa Metsch; Janet M Turan; Eryka L Wentz; Phyllis C Tien; Sheri D Weiser Journal: J Nutr Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.687
Authors: Brian J Hall; Melissa R Garabiles; Jacobus de Hoop; Audrey Pereira; Leah Prencipe; Tia M Palermo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Maheshwari Andhavarapu; James Orwa; Marleen Temmerman; Joseph Wangira Musana Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.390