ArticleCommunications psychology2026
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.
Article in Communications psychology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cash transfers alleviate financial hardship as either conditional programs, requiring behavioral compliance, or unconditional programs. We undertook a systematic review, quality appraisal, and meta-analysis of 16 RCTs following PRISMA guidelines, examining effects of cash transfers on child development among children (n = 29,887, <8 years old) in low- or middle-income countries; papers were excluded if they used quasi-experimental or simulation methods, or did not have a control group without cash. To examine risk of bias in the studies, we used the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for individually randomized trials (RoB 2) and cluster randomized trials (RoB 2 CRT). After 3.6 years, cash transfers had a small but significant positive effect on cognitive (Cohen's d = 0.08, 95% CI 0.04, 0.13), language (d = 0.09, 95% CI 0.04, 0.13), and gross motor outcomes (d = 0.07, 95% CI 0.03, 0.11); only conditional cash transfers showed significant effects on socio-emotional outcomes (d = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04, 0.31). Across outcomes, findings were strongest for children in families receiving conditional cash transfers and a sub-set of cash transfer programs ("cash-plus", which integrated health, nutrition, or parenting support). Limitations of the analysis are that we could only include a small number of studies, and that there was a great degree of heterogeneity among cash transfer programs, and thus our findings are exploratory. In spite of these limitations, our findings suggest that cash transfers were most effective to promote child development when the transfers were bundled with crucial services or support for families, not simply as cash alone.
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.