Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33355262›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2020

Cash transfers and child nutritional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

James Manley, Yarlini Balarajan, Shahira Malm, Luke Harman, Jessica Owens, Sheila Murthy, David Stewart, Natalia Elena Winder-Rossi, Atif Khurshid

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

James ManleyEconomics, Towson University, Towson, Maryland, USA jamesmanley32@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6099-257X
Yarlini BalarajanNutrition Section, Programme Division, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Shahira MalmNutrition Section, Programme Division, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Luke HarmanSave the Children Fund, London, UK.
Jessica OwensFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Lazio, Italy.
Sheila MurthyConsultant, New York, New York, USA.
David StewartSocial Policy and Inclusion Section Programme Division, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Natalia Elena Winder-RossiSocial Policy and Inclusion Section Programme Division, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Atif KhurshidSocial Policy and Inclusion Section Programme Division, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
United Nations Children's Fund · USFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · ITSave the Children · GBTowson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCash transfer (CT) programmes are implemented widely to alleviate poverty and provide safety nets to vulnerable households with children. However, evidence on the effects of CTs on child health and nutrition outcomes has been mixed. We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact of CTs on child nutritional status and selected proximate determinants.

methodsWe searched articles published between January 1997 and September 2018 using Agris, Econlit, Eldis, IBSS, IDEAS, IFPRI, Google Scholar, PubMed and World Bank databases. We included studies using quantitative impact evaluation methods of CTs with sample sizes over 300, targeted to households with children under 5 years old conducted in countries with gross domestic product per capita below US$10 000 at baseline. We conducted meta-analysis using random-effects models to assess the impact of CT programmes on selected child nutrition outcomes and meta-regression analysis to examine the association of programme characteristics with effect sizes.

resultsOut of 2862 articles identified, 74 articles were eligible for inclusion. We find that CTs have significant effects of 0.03±0.03 on height-for-age z-scores (p<0.03) and a decrease of 2.1% in stunting (95% CI -3.5% to -0.7%); consumption of animal-source foods (4.5%, 95% CI 2.9% to 6.0%); dietary diversity (0.73, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19) and diarrhoea incidence (-2.7%, 95% CI -5.4% to -0.0%; p<0.05). The effects of CTs on weight-for-age z-scores and wasting were not significant (0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08; p<0.42) and (1.2%, 95% CI: -0.1% to 2.5%; p<0.07), respectively. We found that specific programme characteristics differentially modified the effect on the nutrition outcomes studied.

conclusionWe found that CT programmes targeted to households with young children improved linear growth and contributed to reduced stunting. We found that the likely pathways were through increased dietary diversity, including through the increased consumption of animal-source foods and reduced incidence of diarrhoea. With heightened interest in nutrition-responsive social protection programmes to improve child nutrition, we make recommendations to inform the design and implementation of future programmes.

Indexed as

Growth DisordersPovertyChildChild, PreschoolHumanschild healthhealth policysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33355262
PMCPMC7751217
OpenAlexW3115538441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.