↓ Skip to main content

Unconditional cash transfers for assistance in humanitarian disasters: effect on use of health services and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unconditional cash transfers for assistance in humanitarian disasters: effect on use of health services and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011247.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Pega, Sze Yan Liu, Stefan Walter, Stefan K Lhachimi

Abstract

Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) are a common social protection intervention that increases income, a key social determinant of health, in disaster contexts in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To assess the effects of UCTs in improving health services use, health outcomes, social determinants of health, health care expenditure, and local markets and infrastructure in LMICs. We also compared the relative effectiveness of UCTs delivered in-hand with in-kind transfers, conditional cash transfers, and UCTs paid through other mechanisms. We searched 17 academic databases, including the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE, and EMBASE between May and July 2014 for any records published up until 4 May 2014. We also searched grey literature databases, organisational websites, reference lists of included records, and academic journals, as well as seeking expert advice. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as cohort, interrupted time series, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) on UCTs in LMICs. Primary outcomes were the use of health services and health outcomes. Two authors independently screened all potentially relevant records for inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the included studies' risk of bias. We requested missing information from the study authors. Three studies (one cluster-RCT and two CBAs) comprising a total of 13,885 participants (9640 children and 4245 adults) as well as 1200 households in two LMICs (Nicaragua and Niger) met the inclusion criteria. They examined five UCTs between USD 145 and USD 250 (or more, depending on household characteristics) that were provided by governmental, non-governmental or research organisations during experiments or pilot programmes in response to droughts. Two studies examined the effectiveness of UCTs, and one study examined the relative effectiveness of in-hand UCTs compared with in-kind transfers and UCTs paid via mobile phone. Due to the methodologic limitations of the retrieved records, which carried a high risk of bias and very serious indirectness, we considered the body of evidence to be of very low overall quality and thus very uncertain across all outcomes.Depending on the specific health services use and health outcomes examined, the included studies either reported no evidence that UCTs had impacted the outcome, or they reported that UCTs improved the outcome. No single outcome was reported by more than one study. There was a very small increase in the proportion of children who received vitamin or iron supplements (mean difference (MD) 0.10 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.14) and on the child's home environment, as well as clinically meaningful, very large reductions in the chance of child death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66) and the incidence of severe acute malnutrition (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.80). There was also a moderate reduction in the number of days children spent sick in bed (MD - 0.36 SDs, 95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.10). There was no evidence for any effect on the proportion of children receiving deworming drugs, height for age among children, adults' level of depression, or the quality of parenting behaviour. No adverse effects were identified. The included comparisons did not examine several important outcomes, including food security and equity impacts.With regard to the relative effectiveness of UCTs compared with a food transfer providing a relatively high total caloric value, there was no evidence that a UCT had any effect on the chance of child death (HR 2.27, 95% CI 0.69 to 7.44) or severe acute malnutrition (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.99). A UCT paid in-hand led to a clinically meaningful, moderate increase in the household dietary diversity score, compared with the same UCT paid via mobile phone (difference-in-differences estimator 0.43 scores, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.80), but there was no evidence for an effect on social determinants of health, health service expenditure, or local markets and infrastructure. Additional high-quality evidence (especially RCTs of humanitarian disaster contexts other than droughts) is required to reach clear conclusions regarding the effectiveness and relative effectiveness of UCTs for improving health services use and health outcomes in humanitarian disasters in LMICs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 280 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 17%
Researcher 38 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 49 17%
Unknown 45 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 28%
Social Sciences 40 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 13%
Psychology 24 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 4%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 60 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,192,687
of 14,575,239 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,408
of 11,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,175
of 241,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,575,239 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.