BACKGROUND: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs; provided without obligation) for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities (e.g. orphanhood, old age, or HIV infection) are a social protection intervention addressing a key social determinant of health (income) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The relative effectiveness of UCTs compared with conditional cash transfers (CCTs; provided only if recipients follow prescribed behaviours, e.g. use a health service or attend school) is unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of UCTs on health services use and health outcomes in children and adults in LMICs. Secondary objectives are to assess the effects of UCTs on social determinants of health and healthcare expenditure, and to compare the effects of UCTs versus CCTs.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched 15 electronic academic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EconLit, in September 2021. We also searched four electronic grey literature databases, websites of key organisations and reference lists of previous systematic reviews, key journals and included study records.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included both parallel-group and cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series studies of UCT interventions in children (0 to 17 years) and adults (≥ 18 years) in LMICs. Comparison groups received either no UCT, a smaller UCT or a CCT. Our primary outcomes were any health services use or health outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened potentially relevant records for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We obtained missing data from study authors if feasible. For C-RCTs, we generally calculated risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes from crude frequency measures in approximately correct analyses. Meta-analyses applied the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel method using a random-effects model. Where meta-analysis was impossible, we synthesised results using vote counting based on effect direction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies (25 studies of 20 C-RCTs, six CBAs, and three cohort studies) involving 1,140,385 participants (45,538 children, 1,094,847 adults) and 50,095 households in Africa, the Americas and South-East Asia in our meta-analyses and narrative syntheses. These analysed 29 independent data sets. The 24 UCTs identified, including one basic universal income intervention, were pilot or established government programmes or research experiments. The cash value was equivalent to 1.3% to 81.9% of the annualised gross domestic product per capita. All studies compared a UCT with no UCT; three studies also compared a UCT with a CCT. Most studies carried an overall high risk of bias (i.e. often selection or performance bias, or both). Most studies were funded by national governments or international organisations, or both. Throughout the review, we use the words 'probably' to indicate moderate-certainty evidence, 'may/maybe' for low-certainty evidence, and 'uncertain' for very low-certainty evidence. Health services use We assumed greater use of any health services to be beneficial. UCTs may not have impacted the likelihood of having used any health service in the previous 1 to 12 months, when participants were followed up between 12 and 24 months into the intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09; I2 = 2%; 5 C-RCTs, 4972 participants; low-certainty evidence). Health outcomes At one to two years, UCTs probably led to a clinically meaningful, very large reduction in the likelihood of having had any illness in the previous two weeks to three months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92; I2 = 53%; 6 C-RCTs, 9367 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). UCTs may have increased the likelihood of having been food secure over the previous month, at 13 to 36 months into the intervention (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45; I2 = 85%; 5 C-RCTs, 2687 participants; low-certainty evidence). UCTs may have increased participants' level of dietary diversity over the previous week, when assessed with the Household Dietary Diversity Score and followed up 24 months into the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.59 food categories, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.01; I2 = 79%; 4 C-RCTs, 9347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Despite several studies providing relevant evidence, the effects of UCTs on the likelihood of being moderately stunted and on the level of depression remain uncertain. We found no study on the effect of UCTs on mortality risk. Social determinants of health UCTs probably led to a clinically meaningful, moderate increase in the likelihood of currently attending school, when assessed at 12 to 24 months into the intervention (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 8 C-RCTs, 7136 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). UCTs may have reduced the likelihood of households being extremely poor, at 12 to 36 months into the intervention (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; I2 = 63%; 6 C-RCTs, 3805 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was uncertain for whether UCTs impacted livestock ownership, participation in labour, and parenting quality. Healthcare expenditure Evidence from eight cluster-RCTs on healthcare expenditure was too inconsistent to be combined in a meta-analysis, but it suggested that UCTs may have increased the amount of money spent on health care at 7 to 36 months into the intervention (low-certainty evidence). Equity, harms and comparison with CCTs The effects of UCTs on health equity (or unfair and remedial health inequalities) were very uncertain. We did not identify any harms from UCTs. Three cluster-RCTs compared UCTs versus CCTs with regard to the likelihood of having used any health services or had any illness, or the level of dietary diversity, but evidence was limited to one study per outcome and was very uncertain for all three.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This body of evidence suggests that unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) may not impact a summary measure of health service use in children and adults in LMICs. However, UCTs probably or may improve some health outcomes (i.e. the likelihood of having had any illness, the likelihood of having been food secure, and the level of dietary diversity), two social determinants of health (i.e. the likelihoods of attending school and being extremely poor), and healthcare expenditure. The evidence on the relative effectiveness of UCTs and CCTs remains very uncertain.
BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) and the global decline of vaccine coverage are a major global health threat, and novel approaches for increasing vaccine confidence and uptake are urgently needed. 'Nudging', defined as altering the environmental context in which a decision is made or a certain behaviour is enacted, has shown promising results in several health promotion strategies. We present a comprehensive synthesis of evidence regarding the value and impact of nudges to address VH.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to determine if nudging can mitigate VH and improve vaccine uptake. Our search strategy used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH terms to identify articles related to nudging and vaccination in nine research databases. 15 177 titles were extracted and assessed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The final list of included articles was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.
FINDINGS: Identified interventions are presented according to a framework for behaviour change, MINDSPACE. Articles (n=48) from 10 primarily high-income countries were included in the review. Nudging-based interventions identified include using reminders and recall, changing the way information is framed and delivered to an intended audience, changing the messenger delivering information, invoking social norms and emotional affect (eg, through storytelling, dramatic narratives and graphical presentations), and offering incentives or changing defaults. The most promising evidence exists for nudges that offer incentives to parents and healthcare workers, that make information more salient or that use trusted messengers to deliver information. The effectiveness of nudging interventions and the direction of the effect varies substantially by context. Evidence for some approaches is mixed, highlighting a need for further research, including how successful interventions can be adapted across settings.
CONCLUSION: Nudging-based interventions show potential to increase vaccine confidence and uptake, but further evidence is needed for the development of clear recommendations. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic increases the urgency of undertaking nudging-focused research.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020185817.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of pictorial health information on patients’ and consumers’ health behaviors and outcomes, evaluate these effects in lower health literacy populations, and examine the attributes of the interventions. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of pictorial health information on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs that assessed knowledge/understanding, recall, or adherence, and a subgroup analysis of those outcomes on lower health literacy populations. We narratively reviewed characteristics of pictorial health interventions that significantly improved outcomes for lower health literacy populations. RESULTS: From 4160 records, we included 54 RCTs (42 in meta-analysis). Pictorial health information moderately improved knowledge/understanding and recall overall, but largely increased knowledge/understanding for lower health literacy populations (n = 13), all with substantial heterogeneity. Icons with few words may be most helpful in conveying health information. CONCLUSION: Our results support including pictures in health communication to improve patient knowledge. Our results should be interpreted with caution considering the significant heterogeneity of the meta-analysis outcomes. Practice implications: Future research should assess which types and characteristics of pictures that best convey health information and are most useful and the implementation and sustainability in healthcare contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVES: To identify and map existing postnatal educational interventions targeting parents in low and middle-income countries. A secondary objective is to conduct a critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of the educational strategies used for parent-targeted postnatal education. Design & data sources: Using scoping review methodology, MedLine, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched in October 2017.
REVIEW METHODS: All studies published after 2000 reporting on educational interventions that targeted parents from the period of birth to 6 weeks postnatally in low and middle-income countries were included. Studies were excluded if they targeted healthcare professionals or were community interventions that spanned antenatal to postnatal care. Title, abstract and full-text screening was conducted by two reviewers.
RESULTS: We initially identified 9284 articles with 77 articles included after title, abstract and full-text screening. Most of the studies were quantitative (94%) with over half published after 2014. Most studies (61%) targeted a single newborn care education intervention, of which 75% targeted breastfeeding. Interventions used on average three different methods of implementation (e.g., verbal, written information, counselling). Interventions were provided in the hospital (76%), at home (23%), at a clinic/hospital (8%), and/or virtually through an eHealth intervention, including phone or text messages (12%). Maternal outcomes primarily included knowledge, self-efficacy, anxiety and stress while newborn outcomes primarily included exclusive breastfeeding, weight gain at follow-up, and morbidities. Positive changes were found to occur for reported maternal outcomes (89%) and newborn outcomes (56%).
CONCLUSIONS: Parent-targeted education varied in terms of educational topics covered, method and location of intervention, and outcomes examined. While the best strategies of implementing postnatal education interventions to parents in low and middle-income countries is yet to be determined, evidence suggests that current interventions had a positive impact on parents' outcomes using a combined approach. Further work is needed to evaluate the impact on newborn outcomes and to identify the most effective methods and timing of the interventions.
BACKGROUND: Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.
MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.
Aim The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of educational interventions focusing on women and their social network for the promotion of exclusive breastfeeding up to the age of 6 months. Background Despite the advantages of breastfeeding and strategies available for its promotion, early weaning is common worldwide. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Data sources A search was performed in databases ( LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Library), reference lists and grey literature. There was no limitation on the studies' year of publication. Review methods JBI- MASt ARI software were used. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata version 13·0. The effect was estimated by odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Results Of 7201 identified studies, 11 made up the review's corpus. Educational interventions were about twice as effective compared with routine interventions used in the control groups. It was evident that educational interventions have focused only on the woman and have not covered all five types of support she needs to breastfeed. Conclusion Educational interventions were about twice as effective in promoting exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months old. There is a need for further studies applying interventions that address women and their social network from the prenatal period, considering all types of support.
BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage is widely endorsed as the pivotal goal in global health, however substantial barriers to accessing health services for children in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) exist. Failure to access healthcare is an important contributor to child mortality in these settings. Barriers to access have been widely studied, however effective interventions to overcome barriers and increase access to services for children are less well documented.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children aged 5 years and below in LMIC. Four databases (EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO) were searched in January 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: health care utilisation; immunisation uptake; and compliance with medication or referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled study designs were included in the review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.
RESULTS: Fifty seven studies were included in the review. Approximately half of studies (49%) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most studies were randomised controlled trials (n = 44; 77%) with the remaining studies employing non-randomised designs. Very few studies were judged as high quality. Studies evaluated a diverse range of interventions and various outcomes. Supply side interventions included: delivery of services at or closer to home and service level improvements (eg. integration of services). Demand side interventions included: educational programmes, text messages, and financial or other incentives. Interventions that delivered services at or closer to home and text messages were in general associated with a significant improvement in relevant outcomes. A consistent pattern was not noted for the remaining studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This review fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence of the range and effectiveness of interventions that can be used to increase access for children aged ≤5 years in LMIC. It highlights some intervention areas that seem to show encouraging trends including text message reminders and delivery of services at or close to home. However, given the methodological limitations found in existing studies, the results of this review must be interpreted with caution.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420160334200.
BACKGROUND: In 2014, over half (54%) of the world's population lived in urban areas and this proportion will increase to 66% by 2050. This urbanizing trend has been accompanied by an increasing number of people living in urban poor communities and slums. Lower immunization coverage is found in poorer urban dwellers in many contexts. This study aims to identify factors associated with immunization coverage in poor urban areas and slums, and to identify interventions to improve coverage.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Database with broad search terms for studies published between 2000 and 2016.
RESULTS: Of 4872 unique articles, 327 abstracts were screened, leading to 63 included studies: 44 considering factors and 20 evaluating interventions (one in both categories) in 16 low or middle-income countries. A wide range of socio-economic characteristics were associated with coverage in different contexts. Recent rural-urban migration had a universally negative effect. Parents commonly reported lack of awareness of immunization importance and difficulty accessing services as reasons for under-immunization of their children. Physical distance to clinics and aspects of service quality also impacted uptake. We found evidence of effectiveness for interventions involving multiple components, especially if they have been designed with community involvement. Outreach programmes were effective where physical distance was identified as a barrier. Some evidence was found for the effective use of SMS (text) messaging services, community-based education programmes and financial incentives, which warrant further evaluation. No interventions were identified that provided services to migrants from rural areas.
CONCLUSION: Different factors affect immunization coverage in different urban poor and slum contexts. Immunization services should be designed in collaboration with slum-dwelling communities, considering the local context. Interventions should be designed and tested to increase immunization in migrants from rural areas.
Vaccination is one of the most effective ways of reducing childhood mortality. Despite global uptake of childhood vaccinations increasing, rates remain sub-optimal, meaning that vaccine-preventable diseases still pose a public health risk. A range of interventions to promote vaccine uptake have been developed, although this range has not specifically been reviewed in early childhood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of parental interventions to improve early childhood (0-5 years) vaccine uptake. Twenty-eight controlled studies contributed to six separate meta-analyses evaluating aspects of parental reminders and education. All interventions were to some extent effective, although findings were generally heterogeneous and random effects models were estimated. Receiving both postal and telephone reminders was the most effective reminder-based intervention (RD=0.1132; 95% CI=0.033-0.193). Sub-group analyses suggested that educational interventions were more effective in low- and middle-income countries (RD=0.13; 95% CI=0.05-0.22) and when conducted through discussion (RD=0.12; 95% CI=0.02-0.21). Current evidence most supports the use of postal reminders as part of the standard management of childhood immunisations. Parents at high risk of non-compliance may benefit from recall strategies and/or discussion-based forums, however further research is needed to assess the appropriateness of these strategies.
Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs; provided without obligation) for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities (e.g. orphanhood, old age, or HIV infection) are a social protection intervention addressing a key social determinant of health (income) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The relative effectiveness of UCTs compared with conditional cash transfers (CCTs; provided only if recipients follow prescribed behaviours, e.g. use a health service or attend school) is unknown.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of UCTs on health services use and health outcomes in children and adults in LMICs. Secondary objectives are to assess the effects of UCTs on social determinants of health and healthcare expenditure, and to compare the effects of UCTs versus CCTs.
SEARCH METHODS:
For this update, we searched 15 electronic academic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EconLit, in September 2021. We also searched four electronic grey literature databases, websites of key organisations and reference lists of previous systematic reviews, key journals and included study records.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included both parallel-group and cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series studies of UCT interventions in children (0 to 17 years) and adults (≥ 18 years) in LMICs. Comparison groups received either no UCT, a smaller UCT or a CCT. Our primary outcomes were any health services use or health outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently screened potentially relevant records for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We obtained missing data from study authors if feasible. For C-RCTs, we generally calculated risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes from crude frequency measures in approximately correct analyses. Meta-analyses applied the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel method using a random-effects model. Where meta-analysis was impossible, we synthesised results using vote counting based on effect direction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 34 studies (25 studies of 20 C-RCTs, six CBAs, and three cohort studies) involving 1,140,385 participants (45,538 children, 1,094,847 adults) and 50,095 households in Africa, the Americas and South-East Asia in our meta-analyses and narrative syntheses. These analysed 29 independent data sets. The 24 UCTs identified, including one basic universal income intervention, were pilot or established government programmes or research experiments. The cash value was equivalent to 1.3% to 81.9% of the annualised gross domestic product per capita. All studies compared a UCT with no UCT; three studies also compared a UCT with a CCT. Most studies carried an overall high risk of bias (i.e. often selection or performance bias, or both). Most studies were funded by national governments or international organisations, or both. Throughout the review, we use the words 'probably' to indicate moderate-certainty evidence, 'may/maybe' for low-certainty evidence, and 'uncertain' for very low-certainty evidence. Health services use We assumed greater use of any health services to be beneficial. UCTs may not have impacted the likelihood of having used any health service in the previous 1 to 12 months, when participants were followed up between 12 and 24 months into the intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09; I2 = 2%; 5 C-RCTs, 4972 participants; low-certainty evidence). Health outcomes At one to two years, UCTs probably led to a clinically meaningful, very large reduction in the likelihood of having had any illness in the previous two weeks to three months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92; I2 = 53%; 6 C-RCTs, 9367 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). UCTs may have increased the likelihood of having been food secure over the previous month, at 13 to 36 months into the intervention (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45; I2 = 85%; 5 C-RCTs, 2687 participants; low-certainty evidence). UCTs may have increased participants' level of dietary diversity over the previous week, when assessed with the Household Dietary Diversity Score and followed up 24 months into the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.59 food categories, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.01; I2 = 79%; 4 C-RCTs, 9347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Despite several studies providing relevant evidence, the effects of UCTs on the likelihood of being moderately stunted and on the level of depression remain uncertain. We found no study on the effect of UCTs on mortality risk. Social determinants of health UCTs probably led to a clinically meaningful, moderate increase in the likelihood of currently attending school, when assessed at 12 to 24 months into the intervention (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 8 C-RCTs, 7136 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). UCTs may have reduced the likelihood of households being extremely poor, at 12 to 36 months into the intervention (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; I2 = 63%; 6 C-RCTs, 3805 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was uncertain for whether UCTs impacted livestock ownership, participation in labour, and parenting quality. Healthcare expenditure Evidence from eight cluster-RCTs on healthcare expenditure was too inconsistent to be combined in a meta-analysis, but it suggested that UCTs may have increased the amount of money spent on health care at 7 to 36 months into the intervention (low-certainty evidence). Equity, harms and comparison with CCTs The effects of UCTs on health equity (or unfair and remedial health inequalities) were very uncertain. We did not identify any harms from UCTs. Three cluster-RCTs compared UCTs versus CCTs with regard to the likelihood of having used any health services or had any illness, or the level of dietary diversity, but evidence was limited to one study per outcome and was very uncertain for all three.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
This body of evidence suggests that unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) may not impact a summary measure of health service use in children and adults in LMICs. However, UCTs probably or may improve some health outcomes (i.e. the likelihood of having had any illness, the likelihood of having been food secure, and the level of dietary diversity), two social determinants of health (i.e. the likelihoods of attending school and being extremely poor), and healthcare expenditure. The evidence on the relative effectiveness of UCTs and CCTs remains very uncertain.
