ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Implementation and effects of social protection programs for children, older adults, and people with disabilities in Brazil and Ecuador: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term association of a conditional cash transfer programme and maternal mortality in Ecuador: An ecological longitudinal study, 2010-2023.SSM - population health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a scoping review to investigate planned (intentional) and unplanned (not intentional) effects of social protection on socioeconomic determinants of health (SDH) and health inequalities among children, adolescents, elders and people with disabilities, and their caregivers. We reviewed seven programs in (i) Brazil (Programa Bolsa Familia (BFP) and Beneficio de Prestacao Continuada (BPC)), and (ii) Ecuador (Bono de Desarrolo Humano (BDH), Bono 1000 días, Pensión Mis Mejores Años/Pensión para Adultos Mayores, Pensión Toda una Vida/Pensión para personas con discapacidad and Bono Joaquín Gallegos Lara). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Scopus, Econlit, PsycINFO, Global Health, Global Index Medicus and grey literature for studies evaluating program implementation and effects on health outcomes or SDH from 1990 to 2023. We extracted data from 114 studies (84 on BFP, 17 on BDH and 13 on BPC). No studies were identified for the remaining programs. In Brazil, we found substantial evidence of BFP planned effects on children's health and some SDH but little evidence on its unplanned effects in adults and caregivers. Evidence effects of BPC on health outcomes were scarce, with only one study in elders and none among people with disabilities. In Ecuador, we found evidence only for BDH, with some studies on planned health effects and few on SDH and its unplanned effects. Very few studies used longitudinal data, quasi-experimental designs, or comparison groups of eligible non-recipients. Finally, we found large variations coverage and implementation of programs. In summary, our review highlights the lack of evidence on the overall impacts of social protection in Ecuador, particularly those targeting older adults and people with disabilities. In Brazil, further research is needed on unplanned health effects of the BFP and on the impacts of social protection targeting elders and people with disabilities.
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.