Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36913187›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2022

Impact of social protection on gender equality in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of reviews.

Camila Perera, Shivit Bakrania, Alessandra Ipince, Zahrah Nesbitt-Ahmed, Oluwaseun Obasola, Dominic Richardson, Jorinde Van de Scheur, Ruichuan Yu

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. World development · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Gendered Consequences of COVID-19 for Internal Migration.Population research and policy review · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
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

8 authors.

Camila PereraUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.
Shivit BakraniaUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.
Alessandra IpinceUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.
Zahrah Nesbitt-AhmedUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.
Oluwaseun ObasolaUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.
Dominic RichardsonUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.
Jorinde Van de ScheurUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.
Ruichuan YuUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID36913187
PMCPMC9133545
OpenAlexW4281570948

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.