ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2022
Impact of social protection on gender equality in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of reviews.
Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social safety nets, women's economic achievements and agency in 45 countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nature human behaviour · 2026Pooled it
- Assessment of Selective Reporting Biases in Studies Included in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Integration of family planning and nutrition programmes in 64 WHO member states of Africa, Eastern Mediterranean and South-East Asia regions: findings from a survey of Ministry of Health officials.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Accelerators to reduce violence, HIV risk, and early pregnancy among adolescents and young people in Namibia: A cross-sectional analysis of the Violence Against Children & Youth Survey.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Sex Differences in Profile and In-Hospital Death for Acute Stroke in Chile: Data From a Nationwide Hospital Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Article
- The future of universal health coverage: How can low- and middle-income countries 'break free from cocoons and transform'?Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Implementation and effectiveness outcomes of Community Health Advocacy Teams to improve long-lasting insecticide net distribution and use in six districts in Ghana: A one-group pre-post-test study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The Association Between Orofacial Pain and Depression: A Systematic Review.Journal of pain research · 2024Review
- The state of food systems worldwide in the countdown to 2030.Nature food · 2023Article
- Ethically Driven and Methodologically Tailored: Setting the Agenda for Systematic Reviews in Domestic Violence and Abuse.Journal of family violence · 2023Article
- Data sharing practices in collaborative human genomic research in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2023Article
- The Gendered Consequences of COVID-19 for Internal Migration.Population research and policy review · 2023Article
- Impact of social protection on gender equality in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: More than half of the global population is not effectively covered by Objectives: This systematic review aims to collect, appraise, and synthesise the evidence from available systematic reviews on the differential gender impacts of social protection programmes in low and middle-income countries. It answers the following questions: 1.What is known from systematic reviews on the gender-differentiated impacts of social protection programmes in low and middle-income countries?2.What is known from systematic reviews about the factors that determine these gender-differentiated impacts?3.What is known from existing systematic reviews about design and implementation features of social protection programmes and their association with gender outcomes? Search Methods: We searched for published and grey literature from 19 bibliographic databases and libraries. The search techniques used were subject searching, reference list checking, citation searching and expert consultations. All searches were conducted between 10 February and 1 March 2021 to retrieve systematic reviews published within the last 10 years with no language restrictions. Selection Criteria: We included systematic reviews that synthesised evidence from qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies and analysed the outcomes of social protection programmes on women, men, girls, and boys with no age restrictions. The reviews included investigated one or more types of social protection programmes in low and middle-income countries. We included systematic reviews that investigated the effects of social protection interventions on any outcomes within any of the following six core outcome areas of gender equality: economic security and empowerment, health, education, mental health and psychosocial wellbeing, safety and protection and voice and agency. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 6265 records were identified. After removing duplicates, 5250 records were screened independently and simultaneously by two reviewers based on title and abstract and 298 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Another 48 records, identified through the initial scoping exercise, consultations with experts and citation searching, were also screened. The review includes 70 high to moderate quality systematic reviews, representing a total of 3289 studies from 121 countries. We extracted data on the following areas of interest: population, intervention, methodology, quality appraisal, and findings for each research question. We also extracted the pooled effect sizes of gender equality outcomes of meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed, and framework synthesis was used as the synthesis method. To estimate the degree of overlap, we created citation matrices and calculated the corrected covered area. Main Results: Most reviews examined more than one type of social protection programme. The majority investigated social assistance programmes (77%, Authors' Conclusions: Although effectiveness gaps remain, current programmatic interests are not matched by a rigorous evidence base demonstrating
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.