ArticleBMJ public health2025
Brazilian conditional cash transfer programme's impact on youth human capital outcomes: the 2004 Pelotas Birth Cohort.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Brazil's Bolsa Família Programme (BFP) is one of the largest conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes globally. This study evaluated the impact of BFP during childhood on human capital outcomes at age 18. Methods: We analysed data from 2743 participants in the 2004 Pelotas Birth Cohort. BFP participation was assessed at ages 6 and 11, and outcomes at age 18 included grade repetition, being neither in school nor working, criminal behaviour, tobacco use, binge drinking and drug use. To address selection bias, we used Propensity Score Matching to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). Results: No significant effects of BFP participation at ages 6 or 11 were observed for most outcomes: not studying or working (ATT 0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06), tobacco use (ATT -0.03; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05), binge drinking (ATT -0.05; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.05), violent crime (ATT 0.00; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07) or any crime (ATT -0.06; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.03). Weak evidence suggested reductions in non-violent crime (ATT -0.04; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; p=0.072) and drug use (ATT -0.07; 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; p=0.075), but a possible increase in grade repetition (ATT 0.07; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.16; p=0.097). Analyses of BFP receipt at only one time point showed no effects, indicating that longer exposure may be necessary for impact. Conclusions: Participation in the BFP during childhood was not associated with significant improvements in most human capital outcomes at age 18. Nonetheless, potential reductions in drug use and non-violent crime, and the complex relationship with school performance, warrant further investigation into the long-term and multidimensional effects of CCTs. These results are specific to the Pelotas cohort and may not be generalisable to different geographical settings within Brazil.
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.