ArticleHealth policy and planning2022
Informing decisions with disparate stakeholders: cross-sector evaluation of cash transfers in Malawi.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multisectoral interventions and health system performance: a systematic review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024Pooled it
- Using economic analysis to inform health resource allocation: lessons from Malawi.Discover health systems · 2024Review
- Investing in school systems: conceptualising returns on investment across the health, education and social protection sectors.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Economic evaluation of self-help group interventions for health in LMICs: a scoping review.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) in Malawi is a cross-sectoral policy with impacts on health, education, nutrition, agriculture and welfare. Implementation of the SCTP requires collaboration across sectors and across national and international stakeholders. Economic evaluation can inform investment by indicating whether benefits exceed costs, but economic evaluations that provide an overall benefit-cost ratio typically assume a common agreed objective and agreed set of value judgements. In reality, the various stakeholders involved in the delivery of the SCTP may have different remits and objectives and may differ in how they value the impacts of the programme. We use the SCTP as a case study to illustrate a cross-sectoral analytical framework that accounts for these differences. The stakeholders that contribute to the SCTP include the Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development and Global Fund. We estimate how the SCTP changes outcomes in education, health, net production and poverty, and distinguish outcomes in three groups: SCTP recipients; population in Malawi not eligible for the SCTP and population in other countries. After estimating the direct effects and opportunity costs from investing in the SCTP, we summarize the results according to different perspectives. The SCTP is estimated to provide benefits in excess of costs from the perspective of national stakeholders. From the perspective of an international donor interested in health outcomes, its health benefits do not outweigh the opportunity costs unless health improvement in SCTP recipients is valued at 18 times that of other potential spending beneficiaries or the donor values broader outcomes than health alone. This work illustrates the potential of a cross-sectoral economic evaluation to guide debate about stakeholder contributions to the SCTP, and the value judgements required to favour the SCTP above other policy options.
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.