Women economic empowerment via cash transfer and microcredit programs is enough to decrease intimate partner violence? Evidence from a systematic review

Leite, Tatiana Henriques; Moraes, Claudia Leite de; Marques, Emanuele Souza; Caetano, Rosangela; Braga, José Ueleres; Reichenheim, Michael Eduardo

doi:10.1590/0102-311X00174818

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

REVIEW • Cad. Saúde Pública 35 (9) • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00174818 linkcopy

Women economic empowerment via cash transfer and microcredit programs is enough to decrease intimate partner violence? Evidence from a systematic review

O empoderamento econômico das mulheres através de programas de transferência de renda e de microcrédito é suficiente para diminuir a violência entre parceiros íntimos? Evidências de uma revisão sistemática

¿El empoderamiento económico de las mujeres a través de programas de transferencia de renta y de microcréditos basta para disminuir la violencia doméstica? Evidencias de una revisión sistemática

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstracts

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide public health problem. Many proposals aiming to eliminate its occurrence include the empowerment of women through their socio-economic development. In this context, some studies suggested that microcredit programs (MP) and cash transfer programs (CTP) are initiatives that can also reduce the risk of IPV. Others pointed to an opposite effect. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of women’s economic empowerment in MP and CTP on the risk of physical, psychological and sexual violence through a systematic review. Papers/documents selection was conducted by two researchers according to the following criteria: published in English, Portuguese or Spanish; primary data; assessing the effect of MP or CTP on IPV; in heterosexual couples; on women beneficiaries of the intervention; using a comparator group eligible for an MP or CTP; and focusing on risk IPV as the outcomes. Our results showed that the impact of MP are mixed when it comes to physical and physical/sexual violence. Even so, the review suggests that the effect of MP on sexual violence is trivial or nonexistent. Regarding the impact of CTPs, the present study showed that the effects on physical, physical/sexual, psychological, and sexual violence were also heterogeneous. Women more empowered and with some autonomy could be at risk. Despite that, participation in the empowerment program should be encouraged for poor women and families. However, parallel interventions to lead with IPV should be addressed to the main actions to reduce the risk of increasing IPV prevalence in certain scenarios.

Keywords:
Intimate Partner Violence; Government Programs; Empowerment; Women

Reference	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10
Microcredit
Green et al. ²⁸ (2015)	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y
Pronyk et al. ²⁵ (2006)	Y	U	U	N	U	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Tsai et al. ²⁹ (2016)	U	N	N	Y	U	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
Cash transfer
Angelucci ⁶ (2008)	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	Y	U	Y
Hidrobo & Fernald ¹⁸ (2013)	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Pettifor et al. ⁴⁴ (2016)	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	U	Y

Reference	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q7	Q8	Q9
Microcredit
Ahmed ⁴¹ (2005)	N	Y	Y	N	N	U	Y	Y
Bajracharya & Amin ³⁵ (2013)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	U	Y
Bates et al. ³¹ (2004)	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	U	Y
Bhuiya et al. ¹⁵ (2003)	N	Y	Y	U	N	U	Y	N
Cepeda et al. ⁴⁰ (2017)	U	Y	Y	N	Y	U	Y	Y
Chin ³⁴ (2012)	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	U	Y
Dalal et al. ¹⁶ (2013)	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	U
Dutt et al. ¹⁴ (2015)	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N
Hadi ³² (2000)	U	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	U
Hadi ¹³ (2005)	U	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	U
Hasan et al. ⁴² (2014)	N	Y	Y	U	N	U	Y	Y
Karim & Law ⁴³ (2016)	Y	N	Y	Y	N	N	U	Y
Kim et al. ³⁷ (2009)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	U	Y	Y
Koening et al. ³³ (2003)	U	Y	Y	N	N	Y	U	Y
Murshid et al. ³⁸ (2015)	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	U	Y
Murshid ³⁶ (2016)	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	U	Y
Naved & Persson ²⁶ (2005)	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	U	Y	Y
Sarker et al. ³⁰ (2016)	Y	N	Y	U	Y	U	U	Y
Schuler et al. ¹² (1996)	N	U	Y	N	N	Y	U	Y
Vyas et al. ³⁹ (2015)	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	U	N
Cash transfer
Aísa ⁴⁹ (2014)	Y	U	Y	N	Y	U	U	N
Bobonis et al. ¹⁷ (2013)	Y	Y	Y	U	Y	N	U	Y
Bobonis et al. ⁴⁸ (2015)	Y	Y	Y	U	N	N	U	Y
Perova ⁴⁷ (2010)	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	U	Y
Rivera et al. ⁴⁶ (2006)	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	U	Y
Tolman & Rosen ⁴⁵ (2001)	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	U	N

References	Country (Year)	Study design/Participants/Sample size	Baseline prevalence of IPV	Intervention	Control intervention	Type of IPV/Measurement tool/Recall period	Confounding and effect modification variables
Microcredit
RCT
Green et al. ²⁸	Uganda (2015)	Cluster RCT; rural villages, marriage or single women (14-30 years); Christians: 85%; sample size: 1,546	Not informed	Microcredit + business skills training + follow-up support	Microcredit non-members	Physical, psychological violence and control behavior; 14 isolated questions about IPV; recall period: last 8 months	Employment, started enterprise since baseline, currently doing business, average work hour per week, income, monthly cash earnings, durable assets, non-durable consumption, perceptions of women’s autonomy, self-reported autonomy, partner relationship index
Pronyk et al. ²⁵	South Africa (2006)	Cluster RCT; rural villages, marriage women (> 50%); sample size: 860	Physical or/and sexual IPV prevalence: 11% (intervention group) and 9% (comparison group) in the last year	IMAGE *: credit + training + lecturer education + ten sessions about gender education	Microcredit non-members	Physical and sexual IPV combined. WHO’s questionnaire **; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age, village pair, marital status, lifetime experience of intimate-partner violence by current partner at baseline
Tsai et al. ²⁹	Mongolia (2016)	Individual RCT; urban villages, women engage in sex work; Buddhists: 53%; sample size: 107	Physical or/and sexual prevalence: 48% in control group, 40,4% in microcredit group	Credit + 4 sessions intervention about sex protection, safety and sexual risk reduction	Microcredit non-members	Physical, sexual and physical and sexual combined IPV; CTS questionnaire ***; recall period: last 3 and 6 months	No adjustment
Surveys
Ahmed ⁴¹	Bangladesh (2005)	Rural village, ever-marriage women (15-49 years); Islamics: 86,6%; sample size: 2,044	Prevalence of physical or psychological IPV: 14,5%	BRAC ^#: non-formal education, skill development training, and collateral-free loan for income generating activities	Eligible BRAC non-members	Physical and psychological violence; isolated questions about IPV; recall period: last 4 months	Women’s age, education, contribution to household income, currently-alive children, age and schooling of household head, poverty status
Bajracharya & Amin ³⁵	Bangladesh (2013)	Rural and urban villages, ever-marriage women (15-49 years); Muslims: 90%; sample size: 4,195	Prevalence of physical or sexual violence in microcredit group: 28%; microcredit non-members: 21,5%	Grameen Bank ^#, BRAC ^#, ASA ^#, Proshika ^# and others microcredit programs	Microcredit non-members	Physical and sexual violence; CTS adaptation (8 questions) ***; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age and education, age at first marriage, spouse’s education, household size, household sex, socioeconomic status, district, rural/urban
Bates et al. ³¹	Bangladesh (2004)	Rural villages, marriage women (< 50 years); Muslims: 96%; sample size: 1,211	Prevalence of physical IPV: 35%	Microcredit	Microcredit non-members	Physical IPV; adaptation of the WHO’s questionnaire ** (6 questions); recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age, education, and contribution to household income, registered marriage, dowry agreement, household socioeconomic status
Bhuiya et al. ¹⁵	Bangladesh (2003)	Rural village, ever-marriage women (17-70 years); Muslims: 91%; sample size: 189	Lifetime prevalence of physical IPV: 55,8%; psychological IPV: 66,8%	Samities ^# microcredit	Microcredit non-members	Physical and psychological violence; isolated question about IPV; recall period: in life	Husband’s age
Cepeda et al. ⁴⁰	Guatemala (2017)	Rural village, marriage women (80%); Catholics: 95%; sample size: 883	Prevalence of any type of IPV: 12,7% in microcredit group; 28,5% in non-microcredit group	Microcredit	Microcredit non-members	Control behavior, economic and psychological violence; 7 isolated questions about IPV; recall period not available	Women’s age, number of children, education, wage, women main breadwinner
Chin ³⁴	Bangladesh (2012)	Rural village, ever-marriage women; Muslims: 80%; sample size: 1,843	Prevalence of physical or sexual IPV: 38% in microcredit group, 37% in non-microcredit group	Grameen Bank ^#, BRAC ^#, BRDB ^# and Asha ^#	Microcredit non-members	Physical and sexual violence; 6 isolated questions about IPV; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s and husband’s age and education, number of sons at home, number of children, women’s number of unions, religion, land size, distance from village to a health center, distance from village to district headquarters, telephone and television service, family planning, shop presence in village, indicator of satellite, health in village
Dalal et al. ¹⁶	Bangladesh (2013)	Urban and rural villages, ever-marriage women (15-49 years); Muslims: 90%; sample size: 4,464	Prevalence of physical or/and sexual IPV: 51% in the past year	Grameen Bank ^#, BRDB ^#, BRAC ^#, Asha ^#, Proshika ^# and any microcredit organization	Microcredit non-members	Physical, sexual and physical and/or sexual combined; CTS questionnaire ***; recall period: last 12 months	Age, residence, education, religion, wealth index. Effect modification: spousal equity and women’s education
Dutt et al. ¹⁴	Tanzania (2016)	Rural village, marriage women, physical (30-52 years); Christians: 61,4%; sample size: 224	Prevalence of physical IPV: 32% in the past year	MWEDO ^#: education, health services, enterprise development, and through promotion of human and cultural rights	Microcredit non-members	Physical violence; CTS questionnaire ***; recall period: last 12 months	Financial decision making, partner control, depression, self-esteem
Hadi ³²	Bangladesh (2000)	Rural villages, marriage women (< 50 years); sample size: 500	Prevalence sexual IPV: 26,8% in the past year	Microcredit fewer than 5 years; microcredit 5 years or more; no poor ^##	Microcredit non-members	Sexual IPV; deep interview about IPV; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s and husband’s age and education, occupation of husband, land ownership, women’s financial contribution
Hadi ¹³	Bangladesh (2005)	Rural villages, marriage women (< 50years); sample size: 500	Prevalence of physical IPV: 22%; psychological: 28% in the past years	Microcredit fewer than 5 years; microcredit 5 years or more; no poor ^##	Microcredit non-members	Physical and psychological IPV; deep interview about IPV; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age and position, living standard, age at marriage, education, ownership of family
Hasan et al. ⁴²	Bangladesh (2014)	Rural, urban and slum villages, marriage women with disabilities (> 15 years); sample size: 226	Prevalence of physical IPV: 28,3%; psychological: 41,1%; sexual: 18,2%	Microcredit	Microcredit non-members	Physical, psychological and sexual IPV combined; instrument not mentioned; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age, area of residence, education, marital status, degree of disability
Karim & Law ⁴³	Bangladesh (2016)	Rural villages, wife-abusive marriage men; sample size: 243	IPV prevalence not informed	Microcredit active participation; nominal participation ^###	Microcredit non-members	Physical, psychological and/or sexual IPV combined; WHO’s questionnaire ** adaptation; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s and husband’s education, marital duration, household landholding. Effect modification: spouse’s conservative ideology
Kim et al. ³⁷	South Africa (2009)	Rural villages, marriage women (> 50%) 18 years or more; Protestants: 73,2%; sample size: 860	IPV physical and or sexual violence: 11,4% in the past year	IMAGE *: credit + training + lecture educator + ten session about gender education	Microcredit (only cash)	Physical and sexual IPV combined; WHO’s questionnaire **; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age, village pair, marital status, lifetime experience of intimate-partner violence by current partner at baseline
Koenig et al. ³³	Bangladesh (2003)	Rural villages, marriage women (20 years or more); sample size: 10,368	Physical IPV prevalence: 42%	Microcredit fewer than 2 years; microcredit 2 or more years	Microcredit non-members	Physical violence; single question about IPV; recall period not informed	Women’s age, husband’s education, area, number of living sons, religion, landholding, family structure, women’s autonomy index. Community-level variable: women’s education and credit group membership
Murshid et al. ³⁸	Bangladesh (2015)	Urban and rural villages; ever-married women (15-49 years); Hindus: 94%; sample size: 4,163	Physical and/or sexual IPV prevalence: 25%	BRAC ^#, Grameen Bank ^#, ASA ^#, Proshika ^#	Microcredit non-members	Physical and/or sexual IPV combined; CTS modified ***; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s and husband’s age and education, age and education difference, material assets, currently employed, autonomy, decision-making power. Effect modification: urban/rural population
Murshid ³⁶	Bangladesh (2016)	Urban and rural villages; ever-marriage men (15-54 years); sample size: 3,336	Physical and/or sexual IPV prevalence: 15%	BRAC ^#, Grameen Bank ^#, ASA ^#, Proshika ^#	Microcredit non-members	Physical and/or sexual IPV combined; CTS modified ***; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age and education, urban or rural population, intervention media exposure, wealth assets, current employment. Effect modification: material assets
Naved & Persson ²⁶	Bangladesh (2005)	Urban and rural villages; ever-marriage women (15-49 years); sample size: 2,702	Physical IPV prevalence:19% (urban), 15,8% (rural) in the past year	Microcredit	Microcredit non-members	Physical IPV; CTS questionnaire ***; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age and income, husband’s education, dowry, in-lows live in the household, respondent relies on natal, family support in crisis, communication between spouses, women’s and husband’s mother abused by her father, income, muslin, women’s attitude toward gender roles, crime in their community
Sarker et al. ³⁰	Bangladesh (2016)	Rural villages, marriage women (< 49 years); sample size: 180	Physical IPV prevalence: 53,3% in the last 6 months	Microcredit	Microcredit non-members	Physical IPV; instrument not mentioned; recall period: last 6 months	Women’s and husband’s age and education, family income
Schuler et al. ¹²	Bangladesh (1996)	Rural villages, marriage women (< 50 years); sample size: 710	Physical IPV prevalence: 47% in the last year	Grameen Bank ^#: credit + non-formal literacy training; BRAC ^#: credit + education and health for children	Microcredit non-members	Physical violence; single question about IPV; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age and education, number of surviving sons and daughters, poverty status, religion, region, contribution to family support
Vyas et al. ³⁹	Tanzania (2015)	Urban and rural villages, marriage or cohabiting women (90%), mean age of women: 30 years; sample size: 2,084	Physical or/and sexual IPV prevalence: 40% (urban) and 55,6% (rural)	Microcredit cooperative, microcredit exclusive ^§	Microcredit non-members	Physical and sexual violence; 9 isolated questions about IPV; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age
Cash transfer
RCT
Angelucci ⁶	Mexico (2008)	Cluster RCT; rural villages, women with child; sample size: 12,700	IPV prevalence not available	Oportunidades ^§§ conditional cash transfer program: cash + health and education for children	Oportunidades non-members	Physical IPV; questionnaire and recall period uninformed	Women’s and husband age, women’s education, household size, natural disaster, poverty status, alcohol price. Interaction: transfer size and husband with traditional views of gender role
Hidrobo & Fernald ¹⁸	Ecuador (2013)	Cluster RCT; urban and rural villages, marriage women (45%); poor women with a child; Catholics: 74%; sample size: 1,250	Physical IPV prevalence: 30% (control group), 27% (Bono de Desarrollo Humano ^§§). Psychological IPV prevalence: 56% (control group), 52% (Bono de Desarrollo Humano)	Bono de Desarrollo Humano: non-conditional cash transfer program (only cash)	Bono de Desarrollo Humano non-members	Physical, psychological IPV; WHO’s questionnaire **; recall period: unspecific	Age, marital status, race, husband’s education, indicator for whether women has had a child die, currently pregnant, asset index, asset index squared, urban/rural, number of children 0-5 years old, whether kitchen is used for sleeping, province indicators. Effect modification: mother education and mother relative education
Pettifor et al. ⁴⁴	South Africa (2016)	Individual RCT; rural villages, girls aged 13-20 years if they were enrolled in school grades 8-11, not married or pregnant; sample size: 2,448	Physical IPV prevalence: 17% in the last year	Conditional cash transfer program: cash + school attendance (≥ 80% of school days per month)	Non-member microcredit	Physical IPV; questionnaire not mentioned; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age, clustering
Surveys
Aísa ⁴⁹	Mexico (2014)	Urban and rural villages, women with child; Catholics: 83%; sample size: 1,917	Psychological IPV prevalence: 70,5% to Oportunidades ^§§ member, 68% non-member	Oportunidades conditional cash transfer program: cash + health and education for children	Oportunidades non-members	An item about women’s power on contraceptive choices was used as a proxy of psychological abuse; recall period: unspecific	Number of member’s family, dependency, education, remittances, property, rooms, telephone, electric, electronic, water, car, fuel. Effect modification: urban/rural population
Bobonis et al. ¹⁷	Mexico (2013)	Rural villages, marriage women (15 years or older), physical and/or sexual; sample size: 2,867	IPV prevalence: 16%; physical: 11%, sexual: 9%, psychological: 11% in the last year	Oportunidades ^§§ conditional cash transfer program: cash + health and education for children	Oportunidades non-members	Physical, psychological, sexual violence and threat of physical violence; 15 questions about IPV based on CTS ***; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s and husband’s age, race and education, household size, marital status, years of marriage, IPV history in women’s family. Effect modification: decision-making power, expect gains to marriage, type of marital relationship
Bobonis et al. ⁴⁸	Mexico (2015)	Urban and rural setting, marriage women (> 15 years); sample size: Total N = 2,867 (survey 2003), 4,705 (survey 2006), 5,800 (survey 2011)	Physical and/or sexual violence IPV prevalence: 15,9% (2003), 13,7% (2006); 10,2% (2011)	Oportunidades ^§§ conditional cash transfer program: cash + health and education for children	Oportunidades non-members	Physical, sexual, and psychological violence; 16 isolated questions about IPV; recall period: last 12 months	Women and partner’s age, education and indigenous status, attainment level, household size, cohabiting couple indicator, years in union, histories of spousal abuse in parental household during childhood
Perova ⁴⁷	Peru (2010)	Urban and rural villages, marriage women (15-49 years); Catholics: 76%; sample size: 3,904	Physical IPV prevalence: 14%, sexual: 4%, psychological: 15% in the last year	Juntos ^§§: conditional cash transfer program: cash + health and education for children	Juntos non-members	Physical, psychological and sexual violence; 20 isolated questions about IPV; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age and education, health insurance, cohabitation, paid employment, women’s family IPV, electricity, hygienic restroom, piped water, family farming, land, household material, urban/rural. Interaction: number of children, women’s family IPV as a child, paid job
Rivera et al. ⁴⁶	Mexico (2006)	Urban setting, marriage women (> 50%), 18-55 year; sample size: 2,558	Physical IPV prevalence: 18.7% (Oportunidades ^§§); 15,6% (control internal), 22% (control external)	Oportunidades conditional cash transfer program: cash + health and education for children	External control: community without Oportunidades (292); internal control: eligible in communities that receive Oportunidades but do not receive the cash	Physical, psychological, sexual and economic violence; 20 isolated questions about IPV; recall period: last 12 months	Women’s age and education, control group, IPV in childhood, previous marriage, alcohol consumption, freedom of women, decision expenditure, decision about have children
Tolman & Rosen ⁴⁵	USA (2001)	Urban setting, single mothers (18-54 years); Chistians: 91,4%; sample size: 753	Physical IPV prevalence: 14,9% in the last year	TANF ^§§: non-conditional cash transfer program (only cash)	TANF non-members	Physical violence; modified CTS ***; recall period: last 12 months	Uninformed

Reference	Physical violence	Psychological violence	Sexual violence	Physical and/or sexual violence	Physical and/or psychological violence
Microcredit
RCT
Green et al. ²⁸ (2015)	-	-	-	-	β = 0.02; 95%CI: -0.1; 0.14
Pronyk et al. ²⁵ (2006)	-	-	-	OR = 0.45; 95%CI: 0.23; 0.91	-
Tsai et al. ²⁹ (2016)	β = 0.091 (p-value non-significant *)	-	β = 0.379 (p- value non-significant)	β = 0.118 (p-value non-significant)	-
Surveys
Ahmed ⁴¹ (2005)	-	-	-	-	OR = 1.47; 95%CI: 0.96; 2.33
Ahmed ⁴¹ (2005)	-	-	-	-	OR = 0.64; 95%CI: 0.25; 1.66
Bajracharya & Amin ³⁵ (2013)	-	-	-	RD = 0.018 (p-value non-significant)	-
Bates et al. ³¹ (2004)	OR = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.56; 1.00	-	-	-	-
Bhuiya et al. ¹⁵ (2003)	OR = 1.88; 95%CI: not informed	-	-	-	-
Cepeda et al. ⁴⁰ (2017)	-	OR = 0.70; 95%CI: 0.50; 0.97	-	-	-
Chin ³⁴ (2012)	-	-	-	β = 0.152 (p-value non- significant)	-
Dalal et al. ¹⁶ (2013)	Women with health decision power and primary education: OR = 1.83; 95%CI:1.39; 2.40; secondary education: OR = 2.74; 95%CI: 2.03; 3.69; high education: OR = 3.20; 95%CI: 1.62; 6.34	-	Woman with health decision power and primary education: OR = 0.93; 95%CI: 0.58; 1.32; secondary education: OR = 1.34; 95%CI: 0.83; 2.14; higher education: OR = 4.5; 95%CI: 1.85; 11.19	Women with decision making power and primary education: OR = 1.83; 95%CI:1.40; 2.41; secondary education: OR = 2.67; 95%CI: 1.98; 3.61; high education: OR = 3.20; 95%CI:1.62; 6.34	-
Dalal et al. ¹⁶ (2013)	Women without health decision power and primary education: OR = 1.26; 95%CI: 0.88; 1.81; secondary education: OR = 1.23; 95%CI: 0.81; 1.86; higher education: OR = 1.47; 95%CI: 0.34; 6.44	-	Women without health decision power and primary education: OR = 0.79; 95%CI: 0.45; 1.39; secondary education: OR = 1.30; 95%CI: 0.63; 2.70; higher education: insufficient women	Women without health decision power and primary education: OR = 1.25; 95%CI: 0.87; 1.79; secondary education: OR = 1.22; 95%CI: 0.80; 1.84; higher education: OR = 1.47; 95%CI: 0.34; 6.44	-
Dutt et al. ¹⁴ (2015)	Business cooperative - several women working together: β = -0.13; 95%CI: -0.30; -0.02	-	-	-	-
Dutt et al. ¹⁴ (2015)	Independent owner (-)	-	-	-	-
Hadi ³² (2000)	-	-	Microcredit participation less than 5 years: OR = 0.79 (p-value non-significant)	-	-
Hadi ³² (2000)	-	-	Microcredit participation for 5 years or more: OR = 0.65 (p-value non-significant)	-	-
Hadi ¹³ (2005)	Microcredit participation less than 5 years: OR = 0.75 (p-value non-significant)	Microcredit participation less than 5 years: OR = 0.56 (p-value non-significant)	-	-	-
Hadi ¹³ (2005)	Microcredit participation for 5 years or more: OR = 0.32 (p-value < 0.05)	Microcredit participation for 5 years or more: OR = 0.35 (p-value < 0.05)	-	-
Hasan et al. ⁴² (2014)	Physical, sexual and psychological violence combined: OR = 3.46 (p-value < 0.05)
Karim & Law ⁴³ (2016)	Physical, sexual and psychological violence combined. Active participation: β = -0.194 (p-value < 0.05)
Karim & Law ⁴³ (2016)	Physical, sexual and psychological violence combined. Nominal participation: β = -0.095 (p-value non-significant)
Kim et al. ³⁷ (2009)	-	-	-	IMAGE **: OR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.28; 0.93	-
Kim et al. ³⁷ (2009)	-	-	-	Only credit **: OR = 0.86; 95%CI: 0.22; 3.36	-
Koenig et al. ³³ (2003)	Jessore (Bangladesh): β = -1.682 (p-value non-significant)	-	-	-	-
Koenig et al. ³³ (2003)	Sirajgonj (Bangladesh): β = -0.713 (p-value non-significant)	-	-	-	-
Murshid et al. ³⁸ (2015)	-	-	-	Women with relatively better economic status: β = 0.47 (p-value < 0.05)
Murshid et al. ³⁸ (2015)	-	-	-	Poorer women: β = -0.04 (p-value non-significant)
Murshid ³⁶ (2016)	-	-	-	β = 0.22 (p-value non-significant)
Naved & Person ²⁶ (2005)	Urban: OR = 1.83 (p-value < 0.05)	-	-	-	-
Naved & Person ²⁶ (2005)	Rural: OR = 1.08 (p-value non-significant)	-	-	-	-
Sarker et al. ³⁰ (2016)	OR = 5.4 (p-value < 0.05)	-	-	-	-
Schuler et al. ¹² (1996)	Grameen Bank **: OR = 0.30; 95%CI: 0.18; 0.51	-	-	-	-
Schuler et al. ¹² (1996)	BRAC **: OR = 0.44; 95%CI: 0.28; 0.70	-	-	-	-
Vyas et al. ³⁹ (2015)	-	-	-	Dar es Salaam (Tanzania): cooperative - several women working together: OR = 0.40 (p-value < 0.05)	-
				Dar es Salaam (Tanzania): exclusive - women working alone: OR = 1.79; (p-value < 0.05)
				Mbeya (Tanzania): cooperative - several women working together: OR = 0.70 (p-value non-significant)
				Mbeya (Tanzania): exclusive - women working alone: OR= 0.68 (p-value non-significant)
Cash transfer
RCT
Angelucci ⁶ (2008)	Small values of cash transfer: β = -0.08 (p-value < 0.05)	-	-	-	-
Angelucci ⁶ (2008)	Higher values of cash transfer and husband with traditional views of gender role: β = 0.033 (p-value < 0.05)	-	-	-	-
Hidrobo & Fernald ¹⁸ (2013)	Women with more than primary schooling: β = -0.04 (p-value non-significant)	Women with more than primary schooling: β = -0.21 (p-value < 0.05)	-	-	-
Hidrobo & Fernald ¹⁸ (2013)	No effect (effect measure not informed)	Women had less than primary schooling and had equal to or higher education than their partners: β = 0.09 (p-value < 0.05)	-	-	-
Pettifor et al. ⁴⁴ (2016)	OR = 0.66; 95%CI: 0.59; 0.74	-	-	-	-
Surveys
Aísa ⁴⁹ (2014)	-	Urban: β = 0.150 (p-value < 0.05)	-	-	-
Aísa ⁴⁹ (2014)	-	Rural: β = 0.116 (p-value non-significant)	-	-	-
Bobonis et al. ¹⁷ (2013) ***	β = -0.070 (p-value < 0.05)	β = 0.041 (p-value non-significant)	β = -0.066 (p-value non-significant)	β = -0.096 (p-value < 0.05)	-
Bobonis et al. ⁴⁸ (2015)	β = -0.016 (p-value non-significant)	β = 0.049 (p-value < 0.05)	β = 0.037 (p-value < 0.05)	β = -0.032 (p-value non-significant)	-
Perova ⁴⁷ (2010)	Number of children: β = 0.02 (p-value non-significant)	Number of children: β = 0.02 (p-value < 0.05)	Number of children: β = 0.00 (p-value non-significant)	-	-
	Father use to beat her mother: β = 0.05 (p-value non-significant)	Father use to beat her mother: β = 0.04 (p-value non-significant)	Father use to beat her mother: β = 0.03 (p-value < 0.05)
	Women have a cash paid job: β = -0.02 (p-value non-significant)	Woman have a cash paid job: β = -0.07 (p-value < 0.05)	Woman have a cash paid job: β = -0.05 (p-value < 0.05)
Rivera et al. ⁴⁶ (2006)	Internal control: OR = 1.31; 95%CI: 0.86; 2.04	Internal control: OR = 0.79; 95%CI: 0.56; 1.09	Internal control: OR = 1.58; 95%CI: 0.90; 2.77	-	-
Rivera et al. ⁴⁶ (2006)	External control: OR = 0.81; 95%CI: 0.62; 1.05	External control: OR = 0.75; 95%CI: 0;60; 0.93	External control: OR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.60; 1.12	-	-
Tolman & Rosen ⁴⁵ (2001)	No effect (effect measure not informed)	-	-	-	-

vertical_align_top show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Rua Leopoldo Bulhões, 1480 , 21041-210 Rio de Janeiro RJ Brazil, Tel.:+55 21 2598-2511, Fax: +55 21 2598-2737 / +55 21 2598-2514 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] N: no; U: unclear; Y: yes.

[TFN2] Note: Items: Q1 - Truly Randomization; Q2 - Participants Blinded; Q3 - Allocation Concealment to Groups; Q4 - Intention to Treat Analysis; Q5 - Outcome Evaluator Blinded to Allocation; Q6 - Control and Treatment are Comparable; Q7 - Groups treated Identically Other than Intervention; Q8 - Outcomes Measured in the Same Way for All Groups; Q9 - Outcome Measurement; Q10 - Statistical Analysis.