Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32113520›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2020

The public health effects of interventions similar to basic income: a scoping review.

Marcia Gibson, Wendy Hearty, Peter Craig

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05698498 (Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project), which is not on this map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05698498 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2022 to 2026Enrolled300ConditionsFamilies Experiencing Homelessness and/or Housing Instability, Housing StabilityArmsGuaranteed Income, Public Benefits Information Session
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marcia GibsonMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Electronic address: marcia.gibson@glasgow.ac.uk.
Wendy HeartyImprovement Service, Livingston, UK.
Peter CraigMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Universal, unconditional basic income is attracting increasing policy and academic interest. Income is a key health determinant, and a basic income could affect health through its effect on other determinants, such as employment. However, there is little evidence of its potential effects on public health, because no studies of interventions which meet the definition of basic income have been done. However, there is evidence from studies of interventions with similarities to basic income. Therefore, we aimed to identify these studies and to consider what can be learned from them about the potential effects of such interventions on health and socioeconomic outcomes. We did a systematic scoping review of basic income-like interventions, searching eight bibliographic and eight specialist databases from inception to July, 2019, with extensive hand searching. We included publications in English of quantitative and qualitative studies done in upper-middle-income or high-income countries, of universal, permanent, or subsistence-level interventions providing unconditional payments to individuals or families. We sought to identify the range of outcomes reported by relevant studies, and report health, education, employment, and social outcomes. We extracted and tabulated relevant data and narratively reported effects by intervention and outcome. We identified 27 studies of nine heterogeneous interventions, some universal and permanent, and many evaluated using randomised controlled trials or robust quasi-experimental methods. Evidence on health effects was mixed, with strong positive effects on some outcomes, such as birthweight and mental health, but no effect on others. Employment effects were inconsistent, although mostly small for men and larger for women with young children. There was evidence of spill-over effects in studies measuring effects on large populations. In conclusion, little evidence exists of large reductions in employment, and some evidence suggests positive effects on some other outcomes, including health outcomes. Evidence for macro-level effects is scarce. Quasi-experimental and dynamic modelling approaches are well placed to investigate such effects.

Indexed as

HumansIncomePublic HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32113520
PMCPMC7208547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.