Dataset Information

Cash transfers for HIV prevention: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Given the success of cash programs in improving health outcomes and addressing upstream drivers of HIV risk such as poverty and education, there has been an increasing interest in their potential to improve HIV prevention and care outcomes. Recent reviews have documented the impacts of structural interventions on HIV prevention, but evidence about the effects of cash transfer programs on HIV prevention has not been systematically reviewed for several years.

Methods and findings

We did a systematic review of published and unpublished literature to update and summarize the evidence around cash programs for HIV prevention from January 2000 to December 17, 2020. We included studies with either a cash transfer intervention, savings program, or program to reduce school costs. Included studies measured the program's impact on HIV infection, other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), or sexual behaviors. We screened 1,565 studies and examined 78 in full-text review to identify a total of 45 peer-reviewed publications and reports from 27 different interventions or populations. We did not do a meta-analysis given the range of outcomes and types of cash transfer interventions assessed. Most studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (N = 23; South Africa, Tanzania, Malawi, Lesotho, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and eSwatini) followed by Mexico (N = 2), the United States (N = 1), and Mongolia (N = 1)). Of the 27 studies, 20 (72%) were randomized trials, 5 (20%) were observational studies, 1 (4%) was a case-control study, and 1 (4%) was quasi-experimental. Most studies did not identify a strong association between the program and sexual behaviors, except sexual debut (10/18 finding an association; 56%). Eight of the 27 studies included HIV biomarkers, but only 3 found a large reduction in HIV incidence or prevalence, and the rest found no statistically significant association. Of the studies that identified a statistically significant association with other STIs (N = 4/8), 2 involved incentives for staying free of the STI, and the other 2 were cash transfer programs for adolescent girls that had conditionalities related to secondary schooling. Study limitations include the small number of studies in key populations and examining interventions to reduce school costs and matched saving programs.

Conclusions

The evidence base for large-scale impacts of cash transfers reducing HIV risk is limited; however, government social protection cash transfer programs and programs that incentivize school attendance among adolescent girls and young women show the greatest promise for HIV prevention.

SUBMITTER: Stoner MCD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8668130 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The authors evaluated the use of conditional cash transfers as an HIV and sexually transmitted infection prevention strategy to incentivise safe sex.An unblinded, individually randomised and controlled trial.10 villages within the Kilombero/Ulanga districts of the Ifakara Health and Demographic Surveillance System in rural south-west Tanzania.The authors enrolled 2399 participants, aged 18-30 years, including adult spouses.Participants were randomly assigned to either a control arm (n=1124) or one of two intervention arms: low-value conditional cash transfer (eligible for $10 per testing round, n=660) and high-value conditional cash transfer (eligible for $20 per testing round, n=615). The authors tested participants every 4 months over a 12-month period for the presence of common sexually transmitted infections. In the intervention arms, conditional cash transfer payments were tied to negative sexually transmitted infection test results. Anyone testing positive for a sexually transmitted infection was offered free treatment, and all received counselling.The primary study end point was combined prevalence of the four sexually transmitted infections, which were tested and reported to subjects every 4 months: Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis and Mycoplasma genitalium. The authors also tested for HIV, herpes simplex virus 2 and syphilis at baseline and month 12.At the end of the 12-month period, for the combined prevalence of any of the four sexually transmitted infections, which were tested and reported every 4 months (C trachomatis, N gonorrhoeae, T vaginalis and M genitalium), unadjusted RR for the high-value conditional cash transfer arm compared to controls was 0.80 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.06) and the adjusted RR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.99). Unadjusted RR for the high-value conditional cash transfer arm compared to the low-value conditional cash transfer arm was 0.76 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.03) and the adjusted RR was 0.69 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.92). No harm was reported.Conditional cash transfers used to incentivise safer sexual practices are a potentially promising new tool in HIV and sexually transmitted infections prevention. Additional larger study would be useful to clarify the effect size, to calibrate the size of the incentive and to determine whether the intervention can be delivered cost effectively.NCT00922038 ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:Novel strategies are needed to increase retention in and uptake of prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT) services in sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to determine whether small, increasing cash payments, which were conditional on attendance at scheduled clinic visits and receipt of proposed services can increase the proportions of HIV-infected pregnant women who accept available PMTCT services and remain in care.In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited newly diagnosed HIV-infected women, who were 32 or less weeks pregnant, from 89 antenatal care clinics in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, and randomly assigned (1:1) them to either the intervention group or the control group using computer-based randomisation with varying block sizes of four, six, and eight. The intervention group received compensation on the condition that they attended scheduled clinic visits and accepted offered PMTCT services (US$5, plus US$1 increment at every subsequent visit), whereas the control group received usual care. Outcomes assessed included retention in care at 6 weeks' post partum and uptake of PMTCT services, measured by attendance of all scheduled clinic visits and acceptance of proposed services up to 6 weeks' post partum. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.org, number NCT01838005.Between April 18, 2013, and Aug 30, 2014, 612 potential participants were identified, 545 were screened, and 433 were enrolled and randomly assigned; 217 to the control group and 216 to the intervention group. At 6 weeks' post partum, 174 participants in the intervention group (81%) and 157 in the control group (72%) were retained in care (risk ratio [RR] 1·11; 95% CI 1·00-1·24). 146 participants in the intervention group (68%) and 116 in the control group (54%) attended all clinic visits and accepted proposed services (RR 1·26; 95% CI 1·08-1·48). Results were similar after adjustment for marital status, age, and education.Among women with newly diagnosed HIV, small, incremental cash incentives resulted in increased retention along the PMTCT cascade and uptake of available services. The cost-effectiveness of these incentives and their effect on HIV-free survival warrant further investigation.President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the National Institute of Health and Child Development.

Project description:BackgroundTo 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 findingsForty-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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description: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.