A realist synthesis to develop an explanatory model of how policy instruments impact child and maternal health outcomes

BACKGROUND

Child and maternal health, a key marker of overall health system performance, is a policy priority area by the World Health Organization and the United Nations, including the Sustainable Development Goals. Previous realist work has linked child and maternal health outcomes to globalization, political tradition, and the welfare state. It is important to explore the role of other key policy-related factors. This paper presents a realist synthesis, categorising policy instruments according to the established NATO model, to develop an explanatory model of how policy instruments impact child and maternal health outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies assessing the relationships between policy instruments and child and maternal health outcomes. Data were analysed using a realist framework. The first stage of the realist analysis process was to generate micro-theoretical initial programme theories for use in the theory adjudication process. Proposed theories were then adjudicated iteratively to produce a set of final programme theories.

FINDINGS

From a total of 43,415 unique records, 632 records proceeded to full-text screening and 138 papers were included in the review. Evidence from 132 studies was available to address this research question. Studies were published from 1995 to 2021; 76% assessed a single country, and 81% analysed data at the ecological level. Eighty-eight initial candidate programme theories were generated. Following theory adjudication, five final programme theories were supported. According to the NATO model, these were related to treasure, organisation, authority-treasure, and treasure-organisation instrument types.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a realist synthesis to develop an explanatory model of how policy instruments impact child and maternal health outcomes from a large, systematically identified international body of evidence. Five final programme theories were supported, showing how policy instruments play an important yet context-dependent role in influencing child and maternal health outcomes.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of treatment setting for children with wasting, oedema and growth failure/faltering: A systematic review

This systematic review aimed to address the existing evidence gaps, and guide policy decisions on the settings within which to treat infants <12 months of age with growth faltering/failure, and infants and children aged <60 months with moderate wasting or severe wasting and/or bilateral pitting oedema. Twelve electronic databases were searched for studies published before 10 December 2021. The searches yielded 16,709 records from which 31 studies were eligible and included in the review. Three studies were judged as low quality, whilst 14 were moderate and the remaining 14 were high quality. We identified very few cost and cost-effectiveness analyses for most of the models of care with the certainty of evidence being judged at very low or low. However, there were 17 cost and 6 cost-effectiveness analyses for the initiation of treatment in outpatient settings for severe wasting and/or bilateral pitting oedema in infants and children <60 months of age. From this evidence, the costs appear lowest for initiating treatment in community settings, followed by initiating treatment in community and transferring to outpatient settings, initiating treatment in outpatients then transferring to community settings, initiating treatment in outpatient settings, and lastly initiating treatment in inpatient settings. In addition, the evidence suggested that initiation of treatment in outpatient settings is highly cost-effective when compared to doing nothing or no programme implementation scenarios, using country-specific WHO GDP per capita thresholds. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $20 to $145 per DALY averted from a provider perspective, and $68 to $161 per DALY averted from a societal perspective. However, the certainty of the evidence was judged as moderate because of comparisons to do nothing/ no programme scenarios which potentially limits the applicability of the evidence in real-world settings. There is therefore a need for evidence that compare the different available alternatives.

Cash transfers and human capital outcomes of children in LMICs: A systematic review using PRISMA

With an increasing shift towards cash transfers and the proposition of Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a policy alternative to replace the existing schemes, there has been a rising discussion about the success and failure associated with cash transfers. Therefore, this article carries out a systematic review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) to draw inferences and generate evidences with respect to the influence of cash transfers on two aspects of human capital outcomes of children, viz., child health and nutrition, and educational outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Forty four studies were selected on the basis of a four-stage procedure that checked for identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion. The results indicate that majority of cash transfers based on conditionalities, like mandatory attendance in healthcare organisations and educational institutions, proved to be effective in the selected countries. While 7 studies (16%) showed no changes in the outcomes, 5 (11%) depicted negative impact and the rest (73%) presented a positive result. The selected studies suggest that a strong supply-side mechanism in place in LMICs, ensure functional and quality services at health centres and schools in the respective regions and reflect overwhelming outcomes. Furthermore, incentive design, anticipated termination, and supply-side interventions would be instrumental in avoiding a crisis or shock in the economic sense to recipient households.

Unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities: effect on use of health services and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries

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.

Evaluation of an unconditional cash transfer program targeting children's first-1,000-days linear growth in rural Togo: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In 2014, the government of Togo implemented a pilot unconditional cash transfer (UCT) program in rural villages that aimed at improving children's nutrition, health, and protection. It combined monthly UCTs (approximately US$8.40 /month) with a package of community activities (including behavior change communication [BCC] sessions, home visits, and integrated community case management of childhood illnesses and acute malnutrition [ICCM-Nut]) delivered to mother-child pairs during the first "1,000 days" of life. We primarily investigated program impact at population level on children's height-for-age z-scores (HAZs) and secondarily on stunting (HAZ < -2) and intermediary outcomes including household's food insecurity, mother-child pairs' diet and health, delivery in a health facility and low birth weight (LBW), women's knowledge, and physical intimate partner violence (IPV).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We implemented a parallel-cluster-randomized controlled trial, in which 162 villages were randomized into either an intervention arm (UCTs + package of community activities, n = 82) or a control arm (package of community activities only, n = 80). Two different representative samples of children aged 6-29 months and their mothers were surveyed in each arm, one before the intervention in 2014 (control: n = 1,301, intervention: n = 1,357), the other 2 years afterwards in 2016 (control: n = 996, intervention: n = 1,035). Difference-in-differences (DD) estimates of impact were calculated, adjusting for clustering. Children's average age was 17.4 (± 0.24 SE) months in the control arm and 17.6 (± 0.19 SE) months in the intervention arm at baseline. UCTs had a protective effect on HAZ (DD = +0.25 z-scores, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.50, p = 0.039), which deteriorated in the control arm while remaining stable in the intervention arm, but had no impact on stunting (DD = -6.2 percentage points [pp], relative odds ratio [ROR]: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.51-1.06, p = 0.097). UCTs positively impacted both mothers' and children's (18-23 months) consumption of animal source foods (ASFs) (respectively, DD = +4.5 pp, ROR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.09-4.61, p = 0.029 and DD = +9.1 pp, ROR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.01-6.98, p = 0.048) and household food insecurity (DD = -10.7 pp, ROR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43-0.91, p = 0.016). UCTs did not impact on reported child morbidity 2 week's prior to report (DD = -3.5 pp, ROR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.56-1.14, p = 0.214) but reduced the financial barrier to seeking healthcare for sick children (DD = -26.4 pp, ROR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.08-0.66, p = 0.006). Women who received cash had higher odds of delivering in a health facility (DD = +10.6 pp, ROR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.10-2.13, p = 0.012) and lower odds of giving birth to babies with birth weights (BWs) <2,500 g (DD = -11.8, ROR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.10-0.82, p = 0.020). Positive effects were also found on women's knowledge (DD = +14.8, ROR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.32-2.62, p < 0.001) and physical IPV (DD = -7.9 pp, ROR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-0.99, p = 0.048). Study limitations included the short evaluation period (24 months) and the low coverage of UCTs, which might have reduced the program's impact.

CONCLUSIONS

UCTs targeting the first "1,000 days" had a protective effect on child's linear growth in rural areas of Togo. Their simultaneous positive effects on various immediate, underlying, and basic causes of malnutrition certainly contributed to this ultimate impact. The positive impacts observed on pregnancy- and birth-related outcomes call for further attention to the conception period in nutrition-sensitive programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN83330970.

The food of life: an evaluation of the impact of cash grant receipt and good parenting on child nutrition outcomes in South Africa and Malawi

Social protection interventions (inclusive of cash grant receipt and care provision) have been found to be effective in response to some of the negative implications of the HIV epidemic on children and families. This study explores the impact of cash grant receipt and care provision (operationalised as good parenting) on child nutritional outcomes. In this cross-sectional study, 854 children and younger adolescents (5–15 years) and caregivers affected by HIV, attending community-based organisations in South Africa and Malawi, were interviewed. Interviews comprised inventories on socio-demographic information, family data, cash grant receipt and child nutrition. Parenting was measured using a composite scale. Logistic regression and marginal effects analyses were used to explore the associations between differing levels of social protection (none; either cash or good parenting; cash and good parenting) and child nutritional outcomes. One hundred and sixty children (20.3%) received neither cash nor good parenting; 501 (63.5%) received either cash or good parenting and 128 (16.2%) received both cash and good parenting. In comparison to no intervention, receipt of either cash or good parenting was significantly associated with child non-stunting, the child having sufficient food, and the child not looking thin. Three (3/7) nutritional outcomes showed increased improvement amongst children receiving both cash and good parenting care including child-reported non-hunger, child non-stunting and parental report of sufficient food. Marginal effects analyses further identified an additive effect of cash and good parenting on child nutritional outcomes. This study indicates that receipt of combined cash and good parenting, when compared to cash grant receipt alone, has positive effects on nutrition-related child outcomes.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.

Cash and voucher assistance and children's nutrition status in Somalia

To address ongoing food insecurity and acute malnutrition in Somalia, a broad range of assistance modalities are used, including in‐kind food, food vouchers, and cash transfers. Evidence of the impact of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) on prevention of acute malnutrition is limited in humanitarian and development settings. This study examined the impact of CVA on prevention of child acute malnutrition in 2017/2018 in the context of the Somalia food crisis. Changes in diet and acute malnutrition were measured over a 4‐month period among children age 6–59 months from households receiving household transfers of approximately US$450 delivered either as food vouchers or a mix of in‐kind food, vouchers, and cash. Baseline to endline change in children's dietary diversity, meal frequency, minimum acceptable diet (MAD), mid‐upper arm circumference (MUAC), and acute malnutrition (MUAC < 12.5 cm) were compared using difference‐in‐difference analysis with inverse probability weighting. There were no statistically significant changes in dietary diversity, meal frequency, or the proportion of children with MAD for either intervention group. Adjusted change in mean MUAC showed increases of 0.5 cm (confidence interval [CI; 0.0, 0.7 cm]) in the food voucher group and 0.1 cm (CI [−0.1, 0.4]) in the mixed transfer group. In adjusted analysis, prevalence of acute malnutrition among children under 5 years increased by 0.7% (CI [−13.4, 14.4%]) among food voucher recipients and decreased by 4.8% (CI [−9.9, 8.1%]) in mixed transfer recipients. The change over time in both mean MUAC and acute malnutrition prevalence was similar for both interventions, suggesting that cash and vouchers had similar effects on child nutrition status.

Cash transfer programs have differential effects on health: A review of the literature from low and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Cash transfer programs have grown increasingly popular and are now used as interventions to target a wide array of health outcomes across many diverse settings. However, cash transfer experiments have yielded mixed results, highlighting gaps in our understanding of how these programs work. In particular, we do not yet know whether cash transfers are more effective for certain health outcomes compared to others, or are more effective for some population subgroups compared to others. Here, we ask whether the effects of cash transfers on health outcomes differ across study subgroups.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on cash transfer experiments conducted in low and middle income countries, published in English between 1985 and 2015. We documented whether the investigators reported either i) stratum-specific estimates or ii) the interaction term between subgroups and exposure to the intervention. For studies that presented stratum-specific estimates without statistical tests for heterogeneity, we assessed heterogeneity across subgroups with a Cochran Q test.

RESULTS

Of the 56 studies we reviewed, 40 reported effects on study subgroups. The majority of the cash transfer interventions had different magnitudes of effects on health across subgroups. This heterogeneity was often underreported or not formally analyzed. We find substantial heterogeneity of cash transfers on child health and on adult health yet little heterogeneity of cash transfers on sexual and reproductive health.

CONCLUSIONS

Accounting for the heterogeneous impacts of cash transfers during program design and evaluation is necessary to better target cash transfer programs and generate more precise data on their effects.

Suboptimal infant and young child feeding practices in rural Boucle du Mouhoun, Burkina Faso: Findings from a cross-sectional population-based survey

INTRODUCTION

In Burkina Faso in 2016, 27% and 8% of children under-5 were estimated to suffer from stunting and wasting respectively. Here, we report on infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices in rural areas of the Boucle du Mouhoun region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional population-based survey was performed in 2017 in a representative sample of mothers of children aged 6 to 23 months. IYCF practices were assessed using 24-hour dietary recall. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of IYCF practices. All analyses accounted for sampling stratification by child's age group and for data clustering.

RESULTS

According to mothers' reports, 60% (95%CI 55, 65%) of children received the minimum meal frequency, but only 18% (95%CI 15, 22%) and 13% (95%CI 10, 16%) benefited from the minimum dietary diversity and the minimum acceptable diet respectively. Only 16% (95%CI 13, 20%) of mothers reported increasing breastfeeding or liquids and continued feeding during an episode of child illness. Knowledge of timely introduction of complementary foods and recommended feeding practices during an illness were low. Despite positive attitudes towards the introduction of key food groups, mother's perceived self-efficacy to provide children with these food groups every day was relatively low.

DISCUSSION

Our findings highlight the need for interventions to improve mothers' knowledge and practices in relation to IYCF in the Boucle du Mouhoun region. Behaviour change communication strategies have the potential to improve IYCF indicators but should be tailored to the local context. The high attendance of health facilities for preventive well-baby consultations represents an opportunity for contact with caretakers that should be exploited for promotion and child growth monitoring.

The impact of unconditional child cash grant on child malnutrition and its immediate and underlying causes in five districts of the Karnali Zone, Nepal - A trend analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of unconditional cash transfers on child malnutrition and its determinants remains poorly understood. The aim of this study was evaluate the impact of an unconditional child cash grant on children's nutritional status and its immediate (infant and young child feeding, dietary diversity, food consumption, and child infection and care) and underlying (household food security; Water, Hygiene and Sanitation (WASH) determinants among children younger than five years in the Karnali Zone, Nepal.

METHODS

The five districts of the Karnali Zone received standard social welfare services in the form of targeted resource transfers for eligible families, plus an unconditional child cash payment, augmented by a capacity building and behavioural change education. Repeated cross-sectional surveys, with measures taken at baseline (2009, N=3750), midline (2013, N=3750) and endline (2015, N=3647), were carried out using a two-stage cluster sampling method. Multi-level Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) with normal, binomial, Poisson, or multinomial link were performed to detect the unadjusted and adjusted trends.

RESULTS

There was a linear growth among children, with a corresponding increase of 0.41 height-for-age Z-scores (p < 0.001), 0.50 weight-for-age Z-scores (p<0.001), and 0.34 weight-for-height Z-scores (p<0.001) between the study period, equating to a decline in child undernutrition of 9.4, 16.5, and 5.1 percentage points (p<0.001) for stunting, underweight, and wasting respectively. Improvements were also observed in WASH outcomes, care and health seeking behaviours, and food availability.

CONCLUSION

Unconditional child cash grant embedded within a government sponsored cash transfer program for families and complemented by capacity building and behavioural change strategies improves child nutritional status and its determinants.

Cash transfer programmes in lower-income and middle-income countries: understanding pathways to nutritional change-a realist review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Child malnutrition continues to be a significant global public health concern. Nutrition-related interventions have changed and diversified over the last two decades, with increasing emphasis on nutrition-sensitive programmes that address underlying determinants of child malnutrition. Cash transfer programmes (CTPs) are used with increasing popularity in lower-income and middle-income countries to improve both food/nutrition insecurity and resilience. Available studies, however, provide mixed findings on the outcomes of CTPs for child nutritional status. This review is the first stage of a research project to develop evidence-informed theories of how CTPs affect child malnutrition. These will be empirically tested in the field and contribute to a better understanding of how, why, for whom and in what circumstances CTPs can be implemented to optimise impacts on child nutritional status.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This realist review is informed by available standards for realist reviews and follows a five-step process. In step 1, an initial scoping of literature identified potential contextual factors and underlying mechanisms that influence nutritional outcomes, and potential theories developed to address our research question. In step 2, a systematic literature search using multiple databases will be undertaken with papers screened using defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. In step 3, included studies will be appraised, data extracted into a bespoke data extraction tool and used to test and further refine our explanatory framework. The fourth step will synthesise, using a mix of inductive and deductive analytical processes to identify patterns, link chains of inference and tracking and linking of articles. The final step involves dissemination of a preliminary theory for feedback prior to empirically testing it in Kenya and Ethiopia where large-scale CTPs are being implemented.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will not involve primary data collection. Findings will be presented in accordance with Realist and Meta-Narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018110735.

Effects of multiannual, seasonal unconditional cash transfers on food security and dietary diversity in rural Burkina Faso: the Moderate Acute Malnutrition Out (MAM'Out) cluster-randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of multiannual, seasonal unconditional cash transfers (UCT) provided within the Moderate Acute Malnutrition Out (MAM'Out) research project on households' food security and children's and caregivers' dietary diversity.

DESIGN

A two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial with sixteen villages in the intervention group and sixteen others in the control group. A monthly allowance of 10 000 XOF was transferred to caregivers of eligible children via a personal mobile phone account from July to November 2013 and 2014.

SETTING

Tapoa province in the eastern region of Burkina Faso.

PARTICIPANTS

Data on household food access (monthly adequate household food provisioning (MAHFP); household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS)) and maternal and child dietary diversity were analysed for 1143 households, 1219 caregivers of reproductive age (15-49 years) and 1247 under-5 children from both intervention and control groups.

RESULTS

The mean women dietary diversity score in intervention caregivers and the mean dietary diversity score (DDS) in intervention children with inadequate minimum DDS at baseline were respectively 7 % (95 % CI 2, 11 %; P = 0·002) and 17 % (95 % CI 11, 23 %; P <0·001) higher compared with the control group. However, no difference was found in the intervention effect on household food security measured with HFIAS (relative risk = 1·03; 95 % CI 0·92, 1·15; P = 0·565) and MAHFP (relative risk = 0·98; 95 % CI 0·96, 1·01; P = 0·426).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiannual, seasonalUCT increased dietary diversity in children and their caregivers. They can be recommended in actions aiming to improve maternal and child diet diversity.

A cash-based intervention and the risk of acute malnutrition in children aged 6-59 months living in internally displaced persons camps in Mogadishu, Somalia: A non-randomised cluster trial

BACKGROUND

Somalia has been affected by conflict since 1991, with children aged <5 years presenting a high acute malnutrition prevalence. Cash-based interventions (CBIs) have been used in this context since 2011, despite sparse evidence of their nutritional impact. We aimed to understand whether a CBI would reduce acute malnutrition and its risk factors.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We implemented a non-randomised cluster trial in internally displaced person (IDP) camps, located in peri-urban Mogadishu, Somalia. Within 10 IDP camps (henceforth clusters) selected using a humanitarian vulnerability assessment, all households were targeted for the CBI. Ten additional clusters located adjacent to the intervention clusters were selected as controls. The CBI comprised a monthly unconditional cash transfer of US$84.00 for 5 months, a once-only distribution of a non-food-items kit, and the provision of piped water free of charge. The cash transfers started in May 2016. Cash recipients were female household representatives. In March and September 2016, from a cohort of randomly selected households in the intervention (n = 111) and control (n = 117) arms (household cohort), we collected household and individual level data from children aged 6-59 months (155 in the intervention and 177 in the control arms) and their mothers/primary carers, to measure known malnutrition risk factors. In addition, between June and November 2016, data to assess acute malnutrition incidence were collected monthly from a cohort of children aged 6-59 months, exhaustively sampled from the intervention (n = 759) and control (n = 1,379) arms (child cohort). Primary outcomes were the mean Child Dietary Diversity Score in the household cohort and the incidence of first episode of acute malnutrition in the child cohort, defined by a mid-upper arm circumference < 12.5 cm and/or oedema. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. For the household cohort we assessed differences-in-differences, for the child cohort we used Cox proportional hazards ratios. In the household cohort, the CBI appeared to increase the Child Dietary Diversity Score by 0.53 (95% CI 0.01; 1.05). In the child cohort, the acute malnutrition incidence rate (cases/100 child-months) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.70; 1.21) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.53; 1.14) in intervention and control arms, respectively. The CBI did not appear to reduce the risk of acute malnutrition: unadjusted hazard ratio 0.83 (95% CI 0.48; 1.42) and hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex 0.94 (95% CI 0.51; 1.74). The CBI appeared to increase the monthly household expenditure by US$29.60 (95% CI 3.51; 55.68), increase the household Food Consumption Score by 14.8 (95% CI 4.83; 24.8), and decrease the Reduced Coping Strategies Index by 11.6 (95% CI 17.5; 5.96). The study limitations were as follows: the study was not randomised, insecurity in the field limited the household cohort sample size and collection of other anthropometric measurements in the child cohort, the humanitarian vulnerability assessment data used to allocate the intervention were not available for analysis, food market data were not available to aid results interpretation, and the malnutrition incidence observed was lower than expected.

CONCLUSIONS

The CBI appeared to improve beneficiaries' wealth and food security but did not appear to reduce acute malnutrition risk in IDP camp children. Further studies are needed to assess whether changing this intervention, e.g., including specific nutritious foods or social and behaviour change communication, would improve its nutritional impact.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registy ISRCTN29521514.

The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan

Cash-based interventions (CBIs) increasingly are being used to deliver humanitarian assistance and there is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers for preventing undernutrition in emergency contexts. The objectives of this study were to assess the costs, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness in achieving nutrition outcomes of three CBIs in southern Pakistan: a 'double cash' (DC) transfer, a 'standard cash' (SC) transfer and a 'fresh food voucher' (FFV) transfer. Cash and FFVs were provided to poor households with children aged 6-48 months for 6 months in 2015. The SC and FFV interventions provided $14 monthly and the DC provided $28 monthly. Cost data were collected via institutional accounting records, interviews, programme observation, document review and household survey. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case of wasting, stunting and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Beneficiary costs were higher for the cash groups than the voucher group. Net total cost transfer ratios (TCTRs) were estimated as 1.82 for DC, 2.82 for SC and 2.73 for FFV. Yet, despite the higher operational costs, the FFV TCTR was lower than the SC TCTR when incorporating the participation cost to households, demonstrating the relevance of including beneficiary costs in cost-efficiency estimations. The DC intervention achieved a reduction in wasting, at $4865 per case averted; neither the SC nor the FFV interventions reduced wasting. The cost per case of stunting averted was $1290 for DC, $882 for SC and $883 for FFV. The cost per DALY averted was $641 for DC, $434 for SC and $563 for FFV without discounting or age weighting. These interventions are highly cost-effective by international thresholds. While it is debatable whether these resource requirements represent a feasible or sustainable investment given low health expenditures in Pakistan, these findings may provide justification for continuing Pakistan's investment in national social safety nets.

Costs and cost-efficiency of a mobile cash transfer to prevent child undernutrition during the lean season in Burkina Faso: a mixed methods analysis from the MAM'Out randomized controlled trial

Background

This study assessed the costs and cost-efficiency of a mobile cash transfer implemented in Tapoa Province, Burkina Faso in the MAM’Out randomized controlled trial from June 2013 to December 2014, using mixed methods and taking a societal perspective by including costs to implementing partners and beneficiary households.

Methods

Data were collected via interviews with implementing staff from the humanitarian agency and the private partner delivering the mobile money, focus group discussions with beneficiaries, and review of accounting databases. Costs were analyzed by input category and activity-based cost centers. cost-efficiency was analyzed by cost-transfer ratios (CTR) and cost per beneficiary. Qualitative analysis was conducted to identify themes related to implementing electronic cash transfers, and barriers to efficient implementation.

Results

The CTR was 0.82 from a societal perspective, within the same range as other humanitarian transfer programs; however the intervention did not achieve the same degree of cost-efficiency as other mobile transfer programs specifically. Challenges in coordination between humanitarian and private partners resulted in long wait times for beneficiaries, particularly in the first year of implementation. Sensitivity analyses indicated a potential 6% reduction in CTR through reducing beneficiary wait time by one-half. Actors reported that coordination challenges improved during the project, therefore inefficiencies likely would be resolved, and cost-efficiency improved, as the program passed the pilot phase.

Conclusions

Despite the time required to establish trusting relationships among actors, and to set up a network of cash points in remote areas, this analysis showed that mobile transfers hold promise as a cost-efficient method of delivering cash in this setting. Implementation by local government would likely reduce costs greatly compared to those found in this study context, and improve cost-efficiency especially by subsidizing expansion of mobile money network coverage and increasing cash distribution points in remote areas which are unprofitable for private partners.

Unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities: effect on use of health services and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs; provided without obligation) for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities (e.g. orphanhood, old age or HIV infection) are a type of social protection intervention that addresses 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 so long as the recipient engages in prescribed behaviours such as using a health service or attending school) is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of UCTs for improving health services use and health outcomes in vulnerable 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 to effects of UCTs versus CCTs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 17 electronic academic databases, including the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE and Embase, in May 2017. We also searched six electronic grey literature databases and websites of key organisations, handsearched key journals and included records, and sought expert advice.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included both parallel group and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and controlled before-and-after (CBAs) studies, and interrupted time series studies of UCT interventions in children (0 to 17 years) and adults (18 years or older) in LMICs. Comparison groups received either no UCT or a smaller UCT. Our primary outcomes were any health services use or health outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened potentially relevant records for inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We tried to obtain missing data from study authors if feasible. For cluster-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 with random effects. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies (16 cluster-RCTs, 4 CBAs and 1 cohort study) involving 1,092,877 participants (36,068 children and 1,056,809 adults) and 31,865 households in Africa, the Americas and South-East Asia in our meta-analyses and narrative synthesis. The 17 types of UCTs we 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 53.9% of the annualised gross domestic product per capita. All studies compared a UCT with no UCT, and three studies also compared a UCT with a CCT. Most studies carried an overall high risk of bias (i.e. often selection and/or performance bias). Most studies were funded by national governments and/or international organisations.Throughout the review, we use the words 'probably' to indicate moderate-quality evidence, 'may/maybe' for low-quality evidence, and 'uncertain' for very low-quality evidence. 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, P = 0.07, 5 cluster-RCTs, N = 4972, I² = 2%, low-quality evidence). 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 (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.93, 5 cluster-RCTs, N = 8446, I² = 57%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence from five cluster-RCTs on food security was too inconsistent to be combined in a meta-analysis, but it suggested that at 13 to 24 months' follow-up, UCTs could increase the likelihood of having been food secure over the previous month (low-quality 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, 4 cluster-RCTs, N = 9347, I² = 79%, low-quality 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. No evidence was available on the effect of a UCT on the likelihood of having died. 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 1.03 to 1.09, 6 cluster-RCTs, N = 4800, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence was uncertain for whether UCTs impacted livestock ownership, extreme poverty, participation in child labour, adult employment or parenting quality. Evidence from six 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 24 months into the intervention (low-quality evidence). 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, the likelihood of having 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), one social determinant of health (i.e. the likelihood of attending school), and healthcare expenditure. The evidence on the relative effectiveness of UCTs and CCTs remains very uncertain.