Dataset Information

Effectiveness of cash-plus programmes on early childhood outcomes compared to cash transfers alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis in low- and middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To strengthen the impact of cash transfers, these interventions have begun to be packaged as cash-plus programmes, combining cash with additional transfers, interventions, or services. The intervention's complementary ("plus") components aim to improve cash transfer effectiveness by targeting mediating outcomes or the availability of supplies or services. This study examined whether cash-plus interventions for infants and children <5 are more effective than cash alone in improving health and well-being.

Methods and findings

Forty-two databases, donor agencies, grey literature sources, and trial registries were systematically searched, yielding 5,097 unique articles (as of 06 April 2021). Randomised and quasi-experimental studies were eligible for inclusion if the intervention package aimed to improve outcomes for children <5 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and combined a cash transfer with an intervention targeted to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 (No Hunger), SDG3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG4 (Education), or SDG16 (Violence Prevention), had at least one group receiving cash-only, examined outcomes related to child-focused SDGs, and was published in English. Risk of bias was appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I Tools. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for a cash-plus intervention category when there were at least 3 trials with the same outcome. The review was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42018108017). Seventeen studies were included in the review and 11 meta-analysed. Most interventions operated during the first 1,000 days of the child's life and were conducted in communities facing high rates of poverty and often, food insecurity. Evidence was found for 10 LMICs, where most researchers used randomised, longitudinal study designs (n = 14). Five intervention categories were identified, combining cash with nutrition behaviour change communication (BCC, n = 7), food transfers (n = 3), primary healthcare (n = 2), psychosocial stimulation (n = 7), and child protection (n = 4) interventions. Comparing cash-plus to cash alone, meta-analysis results suggest Cash + Food Transfers are more effective in improving height-for-age (d = 0.08 SD (0.03, 0.14), p = 0.02) with significantly reduced odds of stunting (OR = 0.82 (0.74, 0.92), p = 0.01), but had no added impact in improving weight-for-height (d = -0.13 (-0.42, 0.16), p = 0.24) or weight-for-age z-scores (d = -0.06 (-0.28, 0.15), p = 0.43). There was no added impact above cash alone from Cash + Nutrition BCC on anthropometrics; Cash + Psychosocial Stimulation on cognitive development; or Cash + Child Protection on parental use of violent discipline or exclusive positive parenting. Narrative synthesis evidence suggests that compared to cash alone, Cash + Primary Healthcare may have greater impacts in reducing mortality and Cash + Food Transfers in preventing acute malnutrition in crisis contexts. The main limitations of this review are the few numbers of studies that compared cash-plus interventions against cash alone and the potentially high heterogeneity between study findings.

Conclusions

In this study, we observed that few cash-plus combinations were more effective than cash transfers alone. Cash combined with food transfers and primary healthcare show the greatest signs of added effectiveness. More research is needed on when and how cash-plus combinations are more effective than cash alone, and work in this field must ensure that these interventions improve outcomes among the most vulnerable children.

SUBMITTER: Little MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478252 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChild malnutrition continues to be a significant global public health concern. Nutrition-related interventions have changed and diversified over the last two decades, with increasing emphasis on nutrition-sensitive programmes that address underlying determinants of child malnutrition. Cash transfer programmes (CTPs) are used with increasing popularity in lower-income and middle-income countries to improve both food/nutrition insecurity and resilience. Available studies, however, provide mixed findings on the outcomes of CTPs for child nutritional status. This review is the first stage of a research project to develop evidence-informed theories of how CTPs affect child malnutrition. These will be empirically tested in the field and contribute to a better understanding of how, why, for whom and in what circumstances CTPs can be implemented to optimise impacts on child nutritional status.Methods and analysisThis realist review is informed by available standards for realist reviews and follows a five-step process. In step 1, an initial scoping of literature identified potential contextual factors and underlying mechanisms that influence nutritional outcomes, and potential theories developed to address our research question. In step 2, a systematic literature search using multiple databases will be undertaken with papers screened using defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. In step 3, included studies will be appraised, data extracted into a bespoke data extraction tool and used to test and further refine our explanatory framework. The fourth step will synthesise, using a mix of inductive and deductive analytical processes to identify patterns, link chains of inference and tracking and linking of articles. The final step involves dissemination of a preliminary theory for feedback prior to empirically testing it in Kenya and Ethiopia where large-scale CTPs are being implemented.Ethics and disseminationThis review will not involve primary data collection. Findings will be presented in accordance with Realist and Meta-Narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines and published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberCRD42018110735.

Project description:ObjectiveAntenatal care (ANC) is crucial to protecting the health of pregnant women and their unborn children; however, the uptake of ANC among pregnant women in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is suboptimal. One popular strategy to increase the uptake of health services, including ANC visits, are conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes. CCT programmes require beneficiaries to comply with certain conditionalities in order to receive a financial sum. A systematic review was carried out to determine whether CCT programmes have a positive impact on ANC uptake in LMIC populations.MethodsElectronic databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Maternity and Infant Care and Global Health were searched from database inception to 21 January 2022. Reference checking and grey literature searches were also applied. Eligible study designs were randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series analysis. Risk of bias assessments were undertaken for each study by applying the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool.ResultsOut of 1534 screened articles, 18 publications were included for analysis. Eight studies reported statistically non-significant results on all reported outcomes. Seven studies demonstrated statistically significant positive effects ranging from 5.5% to 45% increase in ANC service uptake. A further three studies reported small but statistically significant impact of CCT on the use of ANC services in both positive (2.5% increase) and negative (3.7% decrease) directions. Subanalysis of results disaggregated by socioeconomic status (SES) indicated that ANC attendance may be more markedly improved by CCT programmes in low SES populations; however, results were inconclusive.ConclusionOur evidence synthesis presented here demonstrated a highly heterogeneous evidence base pertaining to the impact of CCTs on ANC attendance. More high-powered studies are required to elucidate the true impact of CCT programmes on ANC uptake, with particular focus on the barriers and enablers of such programmes in achieving intended outcomes.

Project description:Background: We examined recent trends in mobile money and branchless banking regulations related to cash-in, cash-out (CICO) networks (physical access points allowing users to exchange physical cash and electronic money) in low- and middle-income countries, and reviewed evidence on the impacts of CICO regulations on markets and financial inclusion. Methods: Regulation and literature searches began in August 2017 and concluded in June 2018. For the regulatory search we compiled an original database of regulations targeting CICO networks in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. To review evidence of impacts of regulations we conducted additional global searches on Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google using keywords for specific regulatory approaches (e.g., regulation of CICO agents) or hypothesized impacts (e.g., financial inclusion). Results: The resulting database of CICO regulations in the eight focus countries includes 127 regulatory documents, which we coded for four groups of regulations, namely: Business Channel Requirements; Agent Requirements; Regulations on Caps, Fees and Charges; and Customer Identification Requirements. Early CICO regulations focused on agent selection rules, limits on fees, and know-your-customer requirements. More recent waves of regulation have expanded or restricted services CICO agents provide, and also imposed reporting requirements on service providers in an effort to prevent fraud or enhance financial inclusion. Our search for evidence of impacts of CICO regulations resulted in a sample of 90 documents published since 2005, of which only 31 provided evidence on CICO regulation impacts, with most limited in scope-suggesting rigorous policy analysis remains lacking in this quickly expanding sector. Conclusions: Many low- and middle-income countries have introduced regulations that may affect CICO networks, with regulatory approaches differing across geographies and over time. While anecdotal reports of regulatory impacts exist, we found limited evidence of impacts of regulations on CICO networks or on CICO-related financial inclusion.