↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
26 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
560 Mendeley
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.

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 560 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%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 554 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 96 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 12%
Researcher 65 12%
Student > Bachelor 45 8%
Student > Postgraduate 29 5%
Other 95 17%
Unknown 164 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 64 11%
Social Sciences 62 11%
Psychology 41 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 3%
Other 72 13%
Unknown 195 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 221. 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 12 May 2022.
All research outputs
#183,722
of 26,378,648 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#305
of 13,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,115
of 281,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 280 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,378,648 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 281,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 280 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.