Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28499423›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2017

Could cash and good parenting affect child cognitive development? A cross-sectional study in South Africa and Malawi.

Lorraine Sherr, Ana Macedo, Mark Tomlinson, Sarah Skeen, Lucie Dale Cluver

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Interventions for Orphans and Vulnerable Children Affected by HIV/AIDS Worldwide.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lorraine SherrResearch Department of Global Health, University College London, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF, UK. l.sherr@ucl.ac.uk.
Ana MacedoResearch Department of Global Health, University College London, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF, UK.
Mark TomlinsonDepartment of Psychology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Sarah SkeenDepartment of Psychology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Lucie Dale CluverDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Stellenbosch University · ZAUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

The Global Partnership for AIDS Behavioral Research: South Africa and U.S.R24AA022919 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ROTHERAM-BORUS, MARY JANE · 2013 to 2017
$2.4M
European Research Council 313421NIAAA NIH HHS R24 AA022919
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial protection interventions, including cash grants and care provision have been shown to effectively reduce some negative impacts of the HIV epidemic on adolescents and families. Less is known about the role of social protection on younger HIV affected populations. This study explored the impact of cash grants on children's cognitive development. Additionally, we examined whether combined cash and care (operationalised as good parenting) was associated with improved cognitive outcomes.

methodsThe sample included 854 children, aged 5 - 15, participating in community-based organisation (CBO) programmes for children affected by HIV in South Africa and Malawi. Data on child cognitive functioning were gathered by a combination of caregiver report and observer administered tests. Primary caregivers also reported on the economic situation of the family, cash receipt into the home, child and household HIV status. Parenting was measured on a 10 item scale with good parenting defined as a score of 8 or above.

resultsAbout half of families received cash (55%, n = 473), only 6% (n = 51) reported good parenting above the cut-off point but no cash, 18% (n = 151) received combined cash support and reported good parenting, and 21% (n = 179) had neither. Findings show that cash receipt was associated with enhanced child cognitive outcomes in a number of domains including verbal working memory, general cognitive functioning, and learning. Furthermore, cash plus good parenting provided an additive effect. Child HIV status had a moderating effect on the association between cash or/plus good parenting and cognitive outcomes. The association between cash and good parenting and child cognitive outcomes remained significant among both HIV positive and negative children, but overall the HIV negative group benefited more.

conclusionsThis study shows the importance of cash transfers and good parenting on cognitive development of young children living in HIV affected environments. Our data clearly indicate that combined provision (cash plus good parenting) have added value.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentCognitionFinancing, OrganizedHIV InfectionsIncomeAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMalawiMaleMultivariate AnalysisParentingCash GrantChild developmentHIV/AIDSMalawiParentingSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID28499423
PMCPMC5427556
OpenAlexW2613966039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.