| Literature DB >> 29762708 |
Ebenezer Owusu-Addo1,2, Andre M N Renzaho1,3, Ben J Smith1,4.
Abstract
Cash transfers (CTs) are now high on the agenda of most governments in low- and middle-income countries. Within the field of health promotion, CTs constitute a healthy public policy initiative as they have the potential to address the social determinants of health (SDoH) and health inequalities. A systematic review was conducted to synthesise the evidence on CTs' impacts on SDoH and health inequalities in sub-Saharan Africa, and to identify the barriers and facilitators of effective CTs. Twenty-one electronic databases and the websites of 14 key organizations were searched in addition to grey literature and hand searching of selected journals for quantitative and qualitative studies on CTs' impacts on SDoH and health outcomes. Out of 182 full texts screened for eligibility, 79 reports that reported findings from 53 studies were included in the final review. The studies were undertaken within 24 CTs comprising 11 unconditional CTs (UCTs), 8 conditional CTs (CCTs) and 5 combined UCTs and CCTs. The review found that CTs can be effective in tackling structural determinants of health such as financial poverty, education, household resilience, child labour, social capital and social cohesion, civic participation, and birth registration. The review further found that CTs modify intermediate determinants such as nutrition, dietary diversity, child deprivation, sexual risk behaviours, teen pregnancy and early marriage. In conjunction with their influence on SDoH, there is moderate evidence from the review that CTs impact on health and quality of life outcomes. The review also found many factors relating to intervention design features, macro-economic stability, household dynamics and community acceptance of programs that could influence the effectiveness of CTs. The external validity of the review findings is strong as the findings are largely consistent with those from Latin America. The findings thus provide useful insights to policy makers and managers and can be used to optimise CTs to reduce health inequalities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29762708 PMCID: PMC5951115 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czy020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Policy Plan ISSN: 0268-1080 Impact factor: 3.344
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram
Characteristics of included studies/nature of CT programs
| Country | Program | Type of CT | CT design | Study references | Study design |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burkina Faso | Nahouri Cash Transfers Pilot Project (NCTPP) | CCT/UCT | Small scale | cRCT | |
| DR Congo | Mother-to-child HIV Transmission (PMTCT) Study | CCT | Small scale | RCT | |
| Ghana | Livelihood Empowerment against Poverty (LEAP) | CCT/UCT | Large scale | QE | |
| Qualitative | |||||
| Kenya | Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children Program (CT-OVC) | UCT | Large scale | cRCT | |
| cRCT | |||||
| Qualitative | |||||
| Kenya | Hunger Safety Net Program (HSNP) | UCT | Large scale | cRCT | |
| Lesotho | Child Grant Program (CGP) | UCT | Large scale | cRCT | |
| Qualitative | |||||
| Malawi | Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) | UCT | Large scale | cRCT | |
| cRCT | |||||
| Qualitative | |||||
| Malawi | The Zomba Cash Transfer Program (ZCTP) | CCT/UCT | Small scale | cRCT | |
| Malawi | Sexual Health Incentive Study (SHIS) | CCT | Small scale | cRCT | |
| cRCT | |||||
| Mozambique | Basic Social Subsidy Program (BSSP) | UCT | Large scale | Qualitative | |
| Niger | A Prospective Nutrition Intervention Study (NIS) | CCT/UCT | Small scale | RCT | |
| Nigeria | Cash Transfer Pilot Programme (CCT Pilot) | CCT | Small scale | QE | |
| South Africa | Child Support Grant (CSG) & Foster Child Grant (FCG) | UCT | Large scale | QE | |
| QE | |||||
| QE | |||||
| Qualitative | |||||
| South Africa | HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) | CCT | Small scale | RCT | |
| Tanzania | Tanzania Social Action Fund (TSAF) | CCT | Large scale | cRCT | |
| Tanzania | Rewarding Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevention and Control in Tanzania (RESPECT) | CCT | Small scale | cRCT | |
| Uganda | World Food Program (WFP) Karamoja Cash Transfer Pilot | CCT | Small scale | cRCT | |
| SAGE (Uganda) | Social Assistance Grants for Empowerment (SAGE) | UCT | Large scale | QE | |
| Qualitative | |||||
| Uganda | Antenatal Care Utilisation Study (ACUS) | CCT | Small scale | cRCT | |
| Zambia | Child Grant Program (CGP) | UCT | Large scale | cRCT | |
| Zambia | Multiple Category Targeting Grant (MCTG) | UCT | Large scale | cRCT | |
| Zambia | Monze Cash Transfer (MCT) | UCT | Small scale | QE | |
| Zimbabwe | Community-led Cash Transfer Program (CCTP) | CCT/UCT | Small scale | cRCT | |
| Qualitative | |||||
| Zimbabwe | Harmonised Social Cash Transfer (HSCT) | UCT | Large scale | QE | |
| Qualitative |
Figure 2‘Risk of bias’ graph: review authors’ judgements about each ‘risk of bias’ item across all included studies
Figure 3Review authors’ judgements about the dependability of each included qualitative study
Summary of findings (quantitative studies) with GRADE
| Outcome domain | Outcome indicator | Number of studies | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial poverty | Poverty headcount, poverty gap and poverty severity | 8 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Total household consumption expenditure | 12 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |
| Household food expenditure | 14 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |
| Resilience | Savings behaviour | 7 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Borrowing/paying off debt | 12 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |
| Productive capital | Agricultural assets | 10 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Agricultural inputs | 7 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |
| Livestock ownership | 16 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |
| Participation in non-farm enterprises | Ownership of non-farm enterprise | 10 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low |
| Education | School enrolment | 19 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High |
| School attendance | 12 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |
| Absenteeism | 11 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |
| Learning outcomes | 4 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | |
| Health-care utilisation | Preventive/curative care | 12 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Immunization | 2 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | |
| Antenatal visits | 6 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |
| Skilled delivery | 6 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |
| Nutrition | Food security | 9 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High |
| Dietary diversity | 12 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |
| Employment | Adult labour force participation | 8 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low |
| Child labour | Child labour | 15 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Child labour intensity | 11 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |
| Housing and living environment | Housing improvement Changes in living environment | 5 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low |
| Birth registration | Birth certificate acquisition | 5 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Child deprivation | Material wellbeing | 6 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High |
| Social capital | Social cohesion | 3 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Civic participation | Community involvement | 2 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Empowerment | Women’s decision-making power | 7 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low |
| Early marriage | 7 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |
| Adolescent pregnancy | 9 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |
| Physical health/morbidity | Child health | 8 | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High |
| HIV/STI | 3 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |
| Child anthropometry/nutritional status | Underweight | 10 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low |
| Wasting | 8 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | |
| Stunting | 9 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | |
| Subjective wellbeing | Mental health | 8 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Sexual behaviour | Sexual debut (adolescents) | 12 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate |
| Multiple partners (adolescents) | 7 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence: high quality, further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect; moderate quality, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate; low quality, further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate; very low quality, we are very uncertain about the estimate.
Themes and subthemes identified in qualitative synthesis
| Organizing theme | Basic theme | Study references | Illustrative quotes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child deprivation | Material deprivation | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | ||
| Child poverty reduction | Children’s consumption | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | ||
| Education | School attendance School enrolment | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | ||
| Absenteeism | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |||
| Meet direct/indirect educational cost | ||||
| Health-care utilisation | Alleviate financial barriers to access health care | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | ||
| Birth registration | Birth certificate | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | ||
| Sexual behaviour | Reduce the risk of age-disparate sex | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | ||
| Reduce the risk of transactional sex | ||||
| Risky sexual behaviour | ||||
| Empowerment | Women’s decision-making power | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | ||
| Social capital and social cohesion | Improved security | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | ||
| Sense of belonging Enhanced social status | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |||
| State-citizen ‘social contract’ | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | |||
| Jealousy, tension and erosion of informal support | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |||
| Social acceptability | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | |||
| Networks/associations | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |||
| Civic engagement | ||||
| Reciprocity | ||||
| Nutrition | Food security | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | ||
| Food intake | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | |||
| Productive capacity | Agricultural inputs | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | ||
| Productive assets | Livestock ownership | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | ||
| Non-farm enterprises | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | |||
| Child labour | Child labour | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ High | ||
| Savings | Savings | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | ||
| Borrowing | Capacity to borrow | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | ||
| Credit worthiness Feeling ‘safe’ to borrow | ||||
| Housing and living environment | Renovations of houses/rooms | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | ||
| Changes in living environment | ||||
| Household assets | Household assets | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | ||
| Civic participation | Involvement in decision-making | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | ||
| Reintegration into community life | ||||
| Holding state accountable | ||||
| Mental health | Self-esteem | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate | ||
| Reduced stress, anxiety, worrying, and depression, stereotyping of grant recipients | ||||
| Physical health | Morbidity | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low | ||
ConQual indicates the level of confidence in the synthesised findings (high, moderate, low, very low). High quality, further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in program impacts; moderate quality, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in program impacts; low quality, further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in program impacts; very low quality, we are very uncertain about program impacts.