Jan E Cooper1, Tarik Benmarhnia2, Alissa Koski3, Nicholas B King4. 1. School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 20115, USA. Electronic address: jancooper@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health & Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. Electronic address: tbenmarhnia@ucsd.edu. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: alissa.koski@mcgill.ca. 4. Biomedical Ethics Unit & Department of Social Science and Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: nicholas.king@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cash transfer programs have grown increasingly popular and are now used as interventions to target a wide array of health outcomes across many diverse settings. However, cash transfer experiments have yielded mixed results, highlighting gaps in our understanding of how these programs work. In particular, we do not yet know whether cash transfers are more effective for certain health outcomes compared to others, or are more effective for some population subgroups compared to others. Here, we ask whether the effects of cash transfers on health outcomes differ across study subgroups. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on cash transfer experiments conducted in low and middle income countries, published in English between 1985 and 2015. We documented whether the investigators reported either i) stratum-specific estimates or ii) the interaction term between subgroups and exposure to the intervention. For studies that presented stratum-specific estimates without statistical tests for heterogeneity, we assessed heterogeneity across subgroups with a Cochran Q test. RESULTS: Of the 56 studies we reviewed, 40 reported effects on study subgroups. The majority of the cash transfer interventions had different magnitudes of effects on health across subgroups. This heterogeneity was often underreported or not formally analyzed. We find substantial heterogeneity of cash transfers on child health and on adult health yet little heterogeneity of cash transfers on sexual and reproductive health. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for the heterogeneous impacts of cash transfers during program design and evaluation is necessary to better target cash transfer programs and generate more precise data on their effects.
BACKGROUND: Cash transfer programs have grown increasingly popular and are now used as interventions to target a wide array of health outcomes across many diverse settings. However, cash transfer experiments have yielded mixed results, highlighting gaps in our understanding of how these programs work. In particular, we do not yet know whether cash transfers are more effective for certain health outcomes compared to others, or are more effective for some population subgroups compared to others. Here, we ask whether the effects of cash transfers on health outcomes differ across study subgroups. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on cash transfer experiments conducted in low and middle income countries, published in English between 1985 and 2015. We documented whether the investigators reported either i) stratum-specific estimates or ii) the interaction term between subgroups and exposure to the intervention. For studies that presented stratum-specific estimates without statistical tests for heterogeneity, we assessed heterogeneity across subgroups with a Cochran Q test. RESULTS: Of the 56 studies we reviewed, 40 reported effects on study subgroups. The majority of the cash transfer interventions had different magnitudes of effects on health across subgroups. This heterogeneity was often underreported or not formally analyzed. We find substantial heterogeneity of cash transfers on child health and on adult health yet little heterogeneity of cash transfers on sexual and reproductive health. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for the heterogeneous impacts of cash transfers during program design and evaluation is necessary to better target cash transfer programs and generate more precise data on their effects.
Authors: Margaret E Kruk; Todd P Lewis; Catherine Arsenault; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Grace Irimu; Joshua Jeong; Zohra S Lassi; Susan M Sawyer; Tyler Vaivada; Peter Waiswa; Aisha K Yousafzai Journal: Lancet Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Dandara Ramos; Nívea B da Silva; Maria Yury Ichihara; Rosemeire L Fiaccone; Daniela Almeida; Samila Sena; Poliana Rebouças; Elzo Pereira Pinto Júnior; Enny S Paixão; Sanni Ali; Laura C Rodrigues; Maurício L Barreto Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Constance Shumba; Rose Maina; Gladys Mbuthia; Rachel Kimani; Stella Mbugua; Sweta Shah; Amina Abubakar; Stanley Luchters; Sheila Shaibu; Eunice Ndirangu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 3.390