↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Welfare-to-work interventions and their effects on the mental and physical health of lone parents and their children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
349 Mendeley
Title
Welfare-to-work interventions and their effects on the mental and physical health of lone parents and their children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009820.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcia Gibson, Hilary Thomson, Kasia Banas, Vittoria Lutje, Martin J McKee, Susan P Martin, Candida Fenton, Clare Bambra, Lyndal Bond

Abstract

Lone parents in high-income countries have high rates of poverty (including in-work poverty) and poor health. Employment requirements for these parents are increasingly common. 'Welfare-to-work' (WtW) interventions involving financial sanctions and incentives, training, childcare subsidies and lifetime limits on benefit receipt have been used to support or mandate employment among lone parents. These and other interventions that affect employment and income may also affect people's health, and it is important to understand the available evidence on these effects in lone parents. To assess the effects of WtW interventions on mental and physical health in lone parents and their children living in high-income countries. The secondary objective is to assess the effects of welfare-to-work interventions on employment and income. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO EBSCO, ERIC EBSCO, SocINDEX EBSCO, CINAHL EBSCO, Econlit EBSCO, Web of Science ISI, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) via Proquest, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) via ProQuest, Social Services Abstracts via Proquest, Sociological Abstracts via Proquest, Campbell Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) (CRD York), Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), OpenGrey and Planex. We also searched bibliographies of included publications and relevant reviews, in addition to many relevant websites. We identified many included publications by handsearching. We performed the searches in 2011, 2013 and April 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mandatory or voluntary WtW interventions for lone parents in high-income countries, reporting impacts on parental mental health, parental physical health, child mental health or child physical health. One review author extracted data using a standardised extraction form, and another checked them. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and the quality of the evidence. We contacted study authors to obtain measures of variance and conducted meta-analyses where possible. We synthesised data at three time points: 18 to 24 months (T1), 25 to 48 months (T2) and 49 to 72 months (T3). Twelve studies involving 27,482 participants met the inclusion criteria. Interventions were either mandatory or voluntary and included up to 10 discrete components in varying combinations. All but one study took place in North America. Although we searched for parental health outcomes, the vast majority of the sample in all included studies were female. Therefore, we describe adult health outcomes as 'maternal' throughout the results section. We downgraded the quality of all evidence at least one level because outcome assessors were not blinded. Follow-up ranged from 18 months to six years. The effects of welfare-to-work interventions on health were generally positive but of a magnitude unlikely to have any tangible effects.At T1 there was moderate-quality evidence of a very small negative impact on maternal mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.14; N = 3352; studies = 2)); at T2, moderate-quality evidence of no effect (SMD 0.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.05; N = 7091; studies = 3); and at T3, low-quality evidence of a very small positive effect (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.00; N = 8873; studies = 4). There was evidence of very small positive effects on maternal physical health at T1 (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.36; N = 311; 1 study, low quality) and T2 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; N = 2551; 2 studies, moderate quality), and of a very small negative effect at T3 (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; N = 1854; 1 study, low quality).At T1, there was moderate-quality evidence of a very small negative impact on child mental health (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; N = 2762; studies = 1); at T2, of a very small positive effect (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.01; N = 7560; studies = 5), and at T3, there was low-quality evidence of a very small positive effect (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; N = 3643; studies = 3). Moderate-quality evidence for effects on child physical health showed a very small negative effect at T1 (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.03; N = 2762; studies = 1), a very small positive effect at T2 (SMD 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12; N = 7195; studies = 3), and a very small positive effect at T3 (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; N = 8083; studies = 5). There was some evidence of larger negative effects on health, but this was of low or very low quality.There were small positive effects on employment and income at 18 to 48 months (moderate-quality evidence), but these were largely absent at 49 to 72 months (very low to moderate-quality evidence), often due to control group members moving into work independently. Since the majority of the studies were conducted in North America before the year 2000, generalisabilty may be limited. However, all study sites were similar in that they were high-income countries with developed social welfare systems. The effects of WtW on health are largely of a magnitude that is unlikely to have tangible impacts. Since income and employment are hypothesised to mediate effects on health, it is possible that these negligible health impacts result from the small effects on economic outcomes. Even where employment and income were higher for the lone parents in WtW, poverty was still high for the majority of the lone parents in many of the studies. Perhaps because of this, depression also remained very high for lone parents whether they were in WtW or not. There is a lack of robust evidence on the health effects of WtW for lone parents outside North America.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 349 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 349 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 17%
Researcher 46 13%
Student > Bachelor 39 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 9%
Unspecified 21 6%
Other 67 19%
Unknown 85 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 13%
Social Sciences 40 11%
Psychology 37 11%
Unspecified 21 6%
Other 46 13%
Unknown 101 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 26 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,442,021
of 17,814,645 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,140
of 11,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,323
of 284,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,814,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 284,185 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.