Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34843468›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2021

Cash transfers for HIV prevention: A systematic review.

Marie C D Stoner, Kelly Kilburn, Peter Godfrey-Faussett, Peter Ghys, Audrey E Pettifor

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
16.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Wealth, income and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Marie C D StonerCarolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7189-8669
Kelly KilburnDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3069-3958
Peter Godfrey-FaussettUNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5929-9524
Peter GhysUNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland.
Audrey E PettiforCarolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS · CHUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USDuke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the success of cash programs in improving health outcomes and addressing upstream drivers of HIV risk such as poverty and education, there has been an increasing interest in their potential to improve HIV prevention and care outcomes. Recent reviews have documented the impacts of structural interventions on HIV prevention, but evidence about the effects of cash transfer programs on HIV prevention has not been systematically reviewed for several years. METHODS AND

findingsWe did a systematic review of published and unpublished literature to update and summarize the evidence around cash programs for HIV prevention from January 2000 to December 17, 2020. We included studies with either a cash transfer intervention, savings program, or program to reduce school costs. Included studies measured the program's impact on HIV infection, other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), or sexual behaviors. We screened 1,565 studies and examined 78 in full-text review to identify a total of 45 peer-reviewed publications and reports from 27 different interventions or populations. We did not do a meta-analysis given the range of outcomes and types of cash transfer interventions assessed. Most studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (N = 23; South Africa, Tanzania, Malawi, Lesotho, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and eSwatini) followed by Mexico (N = 2), the United States (N = 1), and Mongolia (N = 1)). Of the 27 studies, 20 (72%) were randomized trials, 5 (20%) were observational studies, 1 (4%) was a case-control study, and 1 (4%) was quasi-experimental. Most studies did not identify a strong association between the program and sexual behaviors, except sexual debut (10/18 finding an association; 56%). Eight of the 27 studies included HIV biomarkers, but only 3 found a large reduction in HIV incidence or prevalence, and the rest found no statistically significant association. Of the studies that identified a statistically significant association with other STIs (N = 4/8), 2 involved incentives for staying free of the STI, and the other 2 were cash transfer programs for adolescent girls that had conditionalities related to secondary schooling. Study limitations include the small number of studies in key populations and examining interventions to reduce school costs and matched saving programs.

conclusionsThe evidence base for large-scale impacts of cash transfers reducing HIV risk is limited; however, government social protection cash transfer programs and programs that incentivize school attendance among adolescent girls and young women show the greatest promise for HIV prevention.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleSchoolsSexual BehaviorYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34843468
PMCPMC8668130
OpenAlexW3216197530

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.