Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40274285›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2025

A systematic review of microfinance interventions and violence against women: results from low- and middle-income contexts.

Anaise Williams, Grace Wamue-Ngare, Abigael Malelu-Gitau, Lori Heise, Nancy Glass, Cynthia Edeh, Yurie Aiura, Tabitha Gitahi, Joan Rakuomi, Michele R Decker

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Anaise WilliamsDepartment of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA awill137@jh.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4617-9267
Grace Wamue-NgareDepartment of Sociology, Gender and Development Studies, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Abigael Malelu-GitauDepartment of Sociology, Gender and Development Studies, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Lori HeiseDepartment of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Nancy GlassJohns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Cynthia EdehJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-9244-0793
Yurie AiuraJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Tabitha GitahiDepartment of Sociology, Gender and Development Studies, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Joan RakuomiDepartment of Sociology, Gender and Development Studies, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Michele R DeckerDepartment of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7085-7080

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen's economic empowerment is a longstanding strategy for reducing violence against women and girls (VAWG). Microfinance, the provision of credit and savings opportunities to low-resourced populations, is often delivered in combination with other types of programming, such as gender training, making it hard to assess impact alone and/or in combination with other programming. We assess the effectiveness of diverse forms of microfinance intervention delivery on VAWG.

methodsThe systematic review covered nine databases and grey literature sources for articles published between January 2015 and August 2023. Eligible studies were English language experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of microfinance programming with a VAWG outcome conducted within a low- or middle-income country. Study members reviewed in Covidence and extracted summary data. A parallel qualitative scoping review was conducted.

resultsA total of 3288 studies were reviewed, of which 16 were eligible, with an additional nine grey literature sourced studies (n=25). Most assessed group microfinance (n=16) in relation to intimate partner violence (n=20). Across studies, there were 38 trial arm comparisons, of which 30 were from low-bias studies, inclusive of 15 that identified economic impact. Only 24% (n=9) of comparisons assessed impacts of microfinance programming delivered alone; six null and three protective. Impacts of adding supplemental non-economic programming to microfinance (n=14) and delivering microfinance with non-economic programming (n=15) had mixed results. Qualitative synthesis highlighted the benefits and harms of microfinance.

conclusionMicrofinance can reduce VAWG in some cases; however, overall results are mixed with the majority being null results. Several complexities emerged: variability in both microfinance programme delivery, often involving supplementary programming, and measurement of economic impact on the pathway to reducing VAWG. Both reflect the expanded programming underway and must be considered for a nuanced understanding of microfinance's VAWG impact. The review identifies a small but important evidence base of VAWG increasing due to programming. Varied supplemental non-economic programming was not consistently found to enhance the effectiveness of microfinance in reducing VAWG. Actionable gaps for future programmatic and evaluation work include examining differences across supplemental programming, populations, and outcomes.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesIntimate Partner ViolenceFemaleHumansPovertyGlobal HealthPublic HealthSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40274285
PMCPMC12020751

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.