ArticleGlobal health promotion2020
The food of life: an evaluation of the impact of cash grant receipt and good parenting on child nutrition outcomes in South Africa and Malawi.
Article in Global health promotion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protecting child and adolescent mental health in an uncertain future: commentary on Jaffee and colleagues' Annual Research Review - 'Cash transfer programs and young people's mental health: a review of studies in the United States'.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2025Review
- Experiences of conditional and unconditional cash transfers intended for improving health outcomes and health service use: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Article
- Food Should not be Forgotten: Impacts of Combined Cash Transfer Receipt and Food Security on Child Education and Cognition in South Africa and Malawi.AIDS and behavior · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social protection interventions (inclusive of cash grant receipt and care provision) have been found to be effective in response to some of the negative implications of the HIV epidemic on children and families. This study explores the impact of cash grant receipt and care provision (operationalised as good parenting) on child nutritional outcomes. In this cross-sectional study, 854 children and younger adolescents (5-15 years) and caregivers affected by HIV, attending community-based organisations in South Africa and Malawi, were interviewed. Interviews comprised inventories on socio-demographic information, family data, cash grant receipt and child nutrition. Parenting was measured using a composite scale. Logistic regression and marginal effects analyses were used to explore the associations between differing levels of social protection (none; either cash or good parenting; cash and good parenting) and child nutritional outcomes. One hundred and sixty children (20.3%) received neither cash nor good parenting; 501 (63.5%) received either cash or good parenting and 128 (16.2%) received both cash and good parenting. In comparison to no intervention, receipt of either cash or good parenting was significantly associated with child non-stunting, the child having sufficient food, and the child not looking thin. Three (3/7) nutritional outcomes showed increased improvement amongst children receiving both cash and good parenting care including child-reported non-hunger, child non-stunting and parental report of sufficient food. Marginal effects analyses further identified an additive effect of cash and good parenting on child nutritional outcomes. This study indicates that receipt of combined cash and good parenting, when compared to cash grant receipt alone, has positive effects on nutrition-related child outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.