| Observational studies |
| Hamad R, Rehkopf DH, 201534 |
Reduce poverty for low-income families. |
Amount received varied between US$ 500 and US$ 2,000. |
Birthweight: EITC payments were not statistically significant regarding increased birth weight at family income level of $1,000 [β=65.1 (95%CI-0.46,130.6) p<0.05].
Family income did not affect perinatal health in association with EITC: Term pregnancy [β= 0.0056 (95%CI -0.013,0.024) p>0.05]; Birthweight [β= 18.0 (95%CI -17.8,53.8) p>0.05]. |
Brownell M
et al., 201635 |
Improve prenatal health and birth outcomes. |
HBPB provided prenatal income support (up to $63.91 per month) for low-income women during the second and third trimesters |
Gestational age: HBPB was associated with a reduction in preterm birth [RR=0.76 (95%CI 0.69-0.84) p<0.0001] and small-for-gestational age [RR= 0.90 (95%CI 0.81-0.99) p=0.05], as well as increased large-for-gestational age [RR= 1.13 (95%CI 1.05-1.23) p=0.001].
Birthweight: The program was associated with reduced birth weight [RR=0.71 (95%CI 0.63-0.81) p<0.0001]. |
| Labrecque J et al., 201826 |
Combat poverty through cash transfers to low-income and very low-income families. |
US$ 2.68 to US$ 16.97 monthly, depending on family income level per capita and number of children. |
Anthropometric outcomes: a difference of β= -0.14 [95%CI -0.27, -0.02] was identified in the H/A index among children aged up to 2 years with income < 1,000 reais, and β= -0.20 [95%CI -0.33, -0.88] among those with income > 1,000 reais.
Regarding W/A, differences were β= -0.04 [95%CI -0.17-0.08] for the group with < 1,000 reais in income and β= -0.18 [95%CI -0.30, -0.05] for those with > 1,000 reais. |
| Chakrabarti S, Pan A, Singh P, 202129 |
Improve maternal and child health outcomes through the promotion of health care utilization. |
Financial incentive of US$66.60 offered to women who met specified conditions regarding the use of maternal and childcare services. |
Anthropometric outcomes: the chance of stunting in Odisha was lower following the implementation of Mamata compared to other Indian states.
CG1: All Indian states except Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand [OR=0.89 (95%CI 0.81-0.98)] poor and [OR=1.17 (95%CI 1.04-1.32)] not poor.
CG2: Odisha neighboring states (West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh) [OR=0.85 (95%CI 0.77-0.94)] poor and [OR=1.15 (95%CI 0.86-1.53)] not poor. |
| Lucas A, 202231 |
Assess the long-term benefits of cash transfers through intergenerational transmission of health and poverty, by assessing the relationship between program aid received by the mother during childhood and newborn health, controlling for a set of socioeconomic and health variables. |
US$ 17 e US$34, limit of values 2020. |
Birthweight: that children born in a household where the mother received program were less likely to have low birth weight [OR= 0.93 (CI95% 0.92-0.94)], very low birth weight [OR=0.87 (CI95% 0.84-0.89)], as well as to be born after 37 weeks of gestation [OR= 0.98 CI95% 0.97-0.99)] or 28 weeks of gestation [OR=0.93 CI95% 0.88-0.97)]. |
| Intervention Studies |
| Kandpal E et al., 201633 |
Eradicate extreme poverty in the Philippines, promote healthy practices, improve child nutrition and increase use of health services. |
Maximum monthly cash transfer value: $27.80, targeting poor families with children aged between 0 to 14 years and/or pregnant women |
Anthropometric outcomes: with each additional amount of income, increases in H/A [β= 0.284 (95%CI -0.034; 0.600) p=0.08] and W/A [β= 0.140 (95% CI -0.161; 0.438) p>0.05] were observed, yet without statistical significance.
However, the program was associated with a significant reduction in severe short stature [β = -10,189 (95%CI -18,769; -1,607) p<0.05]. |
| Lopez-Arana S et al., 201632 |
Provide subsidies for investments in education, nutrition and health in poor areas. |
US$ 32-US$ 38 for each child. |
Anthropometric outcomes: FA was associated with a reduction in thinness [OR=0.21 (95%CI 0.05-0.82)] and increased BMI [β= 0.12; (95%CI -0.05-0.29) p <0.05], but also impacted H/A [β=0.00 (95%CI -0.09; 0.10)], short stature [OR= 1.0 (95%CI 0.82-1.23)], overweight [OR=1.39 (95%CI 0.86-2.25)] and obesity [OR=0.31 (95%CI 0.09- 1.06)] among children aged 2 to 5 years. |
| Adubra L et al., 201927 |
Improve nutrition during the first 1000 days of life. |
US$ 4.30 monthly |
Anthropometric outcomes: no associations were observed among any of the treatment groups regarding W/A or delayed growth (SNACK + CASH: [β=0.03 (95%CI -0.15.0.2) p=0.75].
Similarly, compared to the SNACK group, changes in stunting prevalence over time were not statistically significant in the intervention groups (SNACK + MONEY: [OR=0.87 (95%CI 0.66-1.14) p=0.32].
Birthweight: no impact on birth weight [β= -180.1 (95%CI -559, 199)] or low birth weight [OR=1.58 (95%CI 0.29-8.50)]. |
| Briaux J et al., 20209 |
Improve child nutrition and offer community activities (sensitization meetings and home visits targeting child health, nutrition and social protection, as well as integrated community case management of childhood illness and acute malnutrition targeting mother-child pairs during the “first 1,000 days”. |
Approximately US$ 8.40/month. |
Anthropometric outcomes: the program exerted a protective effect on H/A among children aged 6-29 months [DiD= 0.25 (95%CI 0.01-0.50) p= 0.039]. H/A remained stable prior to intervention in 2014 compared to after intervention in 2016 [β=0.03 (95%CI -0.14-0.21) p=0.728].
Birthweight: Women receiving benefits were less likely to have children with low birth weight (<2,500g) [DiD= -11.8; 95%CI 0.10-0.82) p=0.020]. |
| Sudfeld C et al., 202128 |
Increase access to and utilization of prenatal and child health services, including monitoring child growth, treating health conditions, and other interventions not provided by community health workers. |
US$ 4.34 per prenatal care visit, or US$2.17 per routine visit to monitor child growth and health. |
Anthropometric outcomes: no significant effects of CHW + CCT intervention on HAZ [β=1.16 (95%CI 0.59-1.93)]. Significant effects were found on short stature [β=0.44 (95%CI 0.19-0.98)], W/A [β=0.16 (95%CI -0.11 - 0.43)]; W/H [β=-0.68 (95%CI -1.14, -0.21)].
CHW + CCT reduced the risk of overweight [β= 0.27 (95%CI 0.10-0.71)]. |
| González L, Trommlerová S, 202230 |
Assessing the impact of a wage transfer directed toward me on the outcomes of my children's birth. |
Families received a fixed payment of US$ 2.623,45 for each child born or adopted |
Birthweight and gestacional age: the women who received the benefit had a much lower chance of having low-weight children in the future, while their proclivity to have another child (or the time of birth) remained unchanged. The effect is generally fueled by disfavored families (poor women, unmarried women, and women with low education. The transfer of earnings resulted in a drop of 0.9% and 0.7% in the category of children born with less than 2.000 and 1.500 g in low-income households over the next five years, representing a reduction of 49% and 83%, respectively.
The effect on birth weight is pushed by premature babies, but there is no effect on the fracture of premature children. |
Impacto dos programas de transferência de renda nos desfechos de nascimento e crescimento infantil: revisão sistemática
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Excluded reports: Reason 1: different study population (n = 5): studies involving children aged over five years; Reason 2: distinct outcome (n = 3): studies investigating other health and nutritional outcomes, e.g., breastfeeding, vaccination; Reason 3: other type of study (n = 4): Studies not experimental in design; Reason 4: theoretical article (n = 4): studies lacking epidemiological approach; Reason 5: no cash transfer (n = 8): studies in which food or dietary supplements were offered; Reason 6: review article (n = 9); Reason 7: income and food transfer (n = 1): studies on programs offering cash as well as supplemental food; Reason 8: emergency cash transfer (n = 4).Source: Page et al., 202121.
Source: Authors.
Source: Authors.