| Literature DB >> 35365481 |
James Manley1, Harold Alderman2, Ugo Gentilini3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cash transfer (CT) programmes are an increasingly common approach to alleviate poverty and inequality and improving child health and nutrition, as well as supporting other goals such as education. Evidence indicates that CTs can be effective, but overall impacts are small in magnitude. This paper substantially updates the evidence base on the effectiveness of CTs and moderating factors.Entities:
Keywords: child health; health economics; health policy; nutrition; systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35365481 PMCID: PMC8977747 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Glob Health ISSN: 2059-7908
Figure 1Year of publication for sources contained in this review.
Figure 2PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA is Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; see http://www.prisma-statement.org/.
Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis
| Obs | Mean | SD | Min | Max | |
| Study | |||||
| Study sample size | 129 | 3546.64 | 6207.27 | 322 | 58 623 |
| Year of data collection | 129 | 2011.13 | 5.50 | 1993 | 2020 |
| Total years of study | 129 | 2.40 | 1.74 | 0 | 10 |
| Published study | 129 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| Transfer size | |||||
| Real transfer amount, US$ | 127 | 89.71 | 104.68 | 5.3 | 908 |
| Transfer, % of income | 85 | 26.67 | 31.59 | 1 | 218 |
| Log (real transfer) | 119 | 3.99 | 0.97 | 1.7 | 6.8 |
| Programme characteristics | |||||
| Conditional programme | 129 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| Health services access | 129 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| Behaviour change communication (BCC) | 129 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| Participant characteristics | |||||
| Mother’s age | 44 | 28.43 | 7.38 | 15 | 56 |
| Child age | 80 | 24.33 | 19.43 | 0 | 126 |
| % of sample urban | 90 | 0.16 | 0.29 | 0 | 1 |
| Context | |||||
| Sub-Saharan Africa | 129 | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| Latin America | 129 | 0.32 | 0.47 | 0 | 1 |
| South Asia | 129 | 0.14 | 0.35 | 0 | 1 |
| East Asia | 129 | 0.09 | 0.28 | 0 | 1 |
| BCC types | |||||
| BCC on IYCF | 57 | 0.77 | 0.42 | 0 | 1 |
| BCC on household nutrition | 57 | 0.72 | 0.45 | 0 | 1 |
| BCC on healthcare | 57 | 0.86 | 0.35 | 0 | 1 |
| BCC on WASH/ hygiene | 57 | 0.74 | 0.44 | 0 | 1 |
| BCC with business/ag training | 57 | 0.23 | 0.42 | 0 | 1 |
IYCF, Infant and Youth Child Feeding; WASH, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene.
Unweighted sample statistics of dependent variables
| Outcome | Obs | Mean effect size | SD | Min | Max |
| Height for age z-scores | 77 | 0.05 | 0.23 | − 0.34 | 1.2 |
| Weight for age z-scores | 32 | 0.01 | 0.18 | − 0.64 | 0.46 |
| Weight for height z-scores | 40 | 0.06 | 0.37 | − 0.68 | 1.8 |
| Stunting (%) | 41 | − 1.16 | 4.25 | − 10 | 11 |
| Wasting (%) | 25 | − 2.97 | 8.29 | − 40 | 6 |
| Animal-source foods (% of days or budget) | 46 | 14.19 | 21.12 | − 22 | 100 |
| Dietary diversity (food groups) | 29 | 0.63 | 0.64 | − 0.13 | 2.4 |
| Diarrhoea incidence (%) | 24 | − 1.98 | 4.05 | − 15 | 4 |
Effects of cash transfer programmes on child nutrition outcomes
| Outcome | Effect size | P value | 95% CI | N |
| Height for age z-scores | 0.024 | 0.019 | (0.004 to 0.044) | 77 |
| Weight for age z-scores | 0.019 | 0.37 | (− 0.022 to 0.059) | 32 |
| Weight for height z-scores | 0.028 | 0.19 | (− 0.013 to 0.069) | 40 |
| Stunting (%) | − 1.35 | < 0.01 | (−2.34 to 0.35) | 41 |
| Wasting (%) | − 1.31 | < 0.01 | (−2.16 to 0.46) | 25 |
| Animal-source foods (%) | 6.72 | < 0.01 | (5.24 to 8.20) | 46 |
| Dietary diversity | 0.55 | < 0.01 | (0.30 to 0.81) | 29 |
| Diarrhoea incidence (%) | − 1.74 | < 0.01 | (−2.79 to 0.68) | 25 |
All results are from random-effects meta-analysis.
2020 study results* 5 versus 2021 results
| Outcome | 2020* | 2021 | ||||
| Effect Size | P value | N | Effect Size | P value | N | |
| HAZ | 0.026 | 0.029 | 46 | 0.024 | 0.019 | 77 |
| WAZ | 0.023 | 0.41 | 19 | 0.019 | 0.37 | 32 |
| Stunting (%) | − 2.11 | < 0.01 | 27 | − 1.35 | < 0.01 | 41 |
| Wasting (%) | − 1.22 | 0.06 | 17 | − 1.31 | < 0.01 | 25 |
| Animal-source foods (%) | 4.47 | < 0.01 | 20 | 6.72 | < 0.01 | 46 |
| Dietary diversity | 0.73 | < 0.01 | 13 | 0.55 | < 0.01 | 29 |
| Diarrhoea incidence (%) | − 2.72 | 0.048 | 9 | − 1.74 | < 0.01 | 25 |
In the previous paper, WHZ was not included, and in the present analysis child illness was excluded, so neither appears here.
*5
HAZ, height-for-age z-scores; WAZ, weight-for-age z-scores.
Sensitivity analyses: regional analysis
| Outcome | Latin america | Sub-Saharan Africa | South asia | East Asia | ||||
| Effect size | N | Effect size | N | Effect size | N | Effect size | N | |
| HAZ | 0.02 | 27 | 0.00 | 28 | 0.07† | 14 | 0.03 | 5 |
| WAZ | − 0.03 | 9 | 0.03 | 14 | 0.08 | 5 | 0.00 | 4 |
| WHZ | 0.03 | 5 | 0.01 | 15 | 0.04 | 14 | ||
| Stunting (%) | − 2.72‡ | 8 | − 0.65 | 14 | − 2.01† | 11 | − 0.84 | 8 |
| Wasting (%) | − 1.88* | 8 | − 2.15‡ | 7 | − 1.00 | 5 | ||
| Animal-source foods (%) | 3.07* | 11 | 8.21* | 19 | 12.10* | 7 | 10.88† | 6 |
| Dietary diversity | 0.65* | 21 | ||||||
| Diarrhoea incidence (%) | − 2.37† | 8 | − 1.31† | 9 | − 2.22‡ | 4 | ||
Five studies from the Middle East/ North Africa were not enough to support analysis.
In this and all tables,
*indicates significance at the 1% level;
†is for 5%.
‡is significant at the 10% level only
HAZ, height-for-age z-scores; WAZ, weight-for-age z-scores; WHZ, weight for height z-score.
Sensitivity analyses: child age
| Outcome | Under 24 months | 24–60 months | ||||
| Effect size | P value | N | Effect size | P value | N | |
| HAZ | 0.02 | 0.41 | 35 | 0.05 | 0.006 | 27 |
| WAZ | − 0.04 | 0.09 | 13 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 10 |
| WHZ | 0.00 | 0.91 | 17 | 0.02 | 0.74 | 13 |
| Stunting (%) | − 1.65 | 0.03 | 18 | − 1.64 | 0.047 | 16 |
| Wasting (%) | − 0.42 | 0.63 | 9 | − 2.04 | 0.000 | 9 |
| Diarrhoea Incidence (%) | − 1.79 | 0.042 | 11 | − 1.60 | 0.20 | 5 |
Food consumption variables are assessed at the household level and so we cannot break them down using age groups. Note that some studies report that results reflect all children under 60 months without providing enough detail to disaggregate; these studies are excluded from this table.
HAZ, height-for-age z-scores; WAZ, weightt-for-age z-scores; WHZ, weight-for-height z-scores.
Meta-regression analysis: the effect of selected characteristics of CT programmes on selected outcomes
| HAZ | Stunting | Wasting | ASF | Diet | Diar | |
| Total years studied | 0 | − 0.52 | − 0.21 | − 0.79 | − 0.23† | − 0.37 |
| Published study | 0.05‡ | − 1.51 | 0.56 | 2.80 | 0.35‡ | − 0.33 |
| Transfer, % of income | 0.001† | 0.03 | − 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.02* | 0.05 |
| Conditional programme | 0.01 | 0.46 | 1.48‡ | − 3.10 | − 0.18 | 0.89 |
| Behaviour Change Communication | 0.05 | − 1.02 | 0.97‡ | 2.77 | 0.22 | − 2.72† |
| Latin America | − 0.02 | − 1.63 | 2.69* | − 6.43 | 0.15 | − 1.78 |
| BCC: IYCF | 0.06‡ | − 1.32 | − 0.02 | 3.3 | 0.22 | − 1.74 |
| BCC: household nutrition | 0.07† | − 2.11‡ | − 0.43 | 4.85 | − 0.08 | − 2.42† |
| BCC: healthcare | 0.02 | − 0.54 | − 0.09 | − 2.41 | 0.05 | − 3.03† |
| BCC: WASH/hygiene | 0.06† | − 3.26* | − 0.87 | 6.84* | − 0.02 | − 2.94† |
Insignificant coefficients between ±0.005 are indicated by 0.
*Indicates regression coefficients significant at the 1% level.
†For 5%.
‡At the 10%.
ASF, animal source foods; BCC, behaviour change communication; CT, cash transfer; IYCF, Infant and Youth Child Feeding; WASH, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene.