ArticleLancet (London, England)2025
The effects of government-led cash transfer programmes on behavioural and health determinants of mortality: a difference-in-differences study.
Article in Lancet (London, England), 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.
- Climate hazards and mental health hospitalizations in China: socioeconomic disparities, demographic drivers, and adaptation - a nationwide population-based study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies testing effects of cash transfers on child cognitive, language, and socio-emotional development in low- or middle income countries.Communications psychology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPoverty is strongly associated with numerous adverse health outcomes. Government-led cash transfer programmes are crucial to poverty reduction strategies in many low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although extensive research from individual programmes exists on the effects of cash transfers on beneficiaries, evidence of these programmes' population-wide health effects remains scarce. Previously, we showed that cash transfer programmes are associated with substantially reduced mortality rates among women and young children at the population level in LMICs. In this study, we aimed to explore the mechanisms underlying these reductions.
methodsIn this two-stage difference-in-differences study, we combined individual-level data from Demographic and Health Surveys in 37 LMICs with a comprehensive database of government-led cash transfer programmes between 2000 to 2019 to compare countries with cash transfer programmes and countries without these programmes before and after the introduction of them. We evaluated the effects of cash transfer programmes on 17 outcomes related to maternal health service use, fertility and reproductive decision making, caregiver health behaviours, and child health and nutrition. Outcomes were assessed across all respondents of the surveys but could not be differentiated between recipients and non-recipients for countries with cash-transfer programmes.
findingsAmong 37 countries included in the study, 20 introduced large-scale cash transfer programmes during the study period. We included data from 2 156 464 livebirths, and 954 202 children younger than 5 years. We identified statistically significant effects of cash transfer programmes on early antenatal care (5·0 percentage points, 95% CI 2·1 to 7·9; p
interpretationAs many countries consider the future of their cash transfer programmes, including whether to embrace approaches such as basic or guaranteed incomes, these findings provide new evidence on the numerous ways in which such programmes can improve population health.
fundingUS National Institutes of Health.
Indexed as
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.