Cooper Jan E, Benmarhnia Tarik, Koski Alissa, King Nicholas B
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 20115, USA.
Department of Family Medicine and Public Health & Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan 25;247:112806. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112806.
Cash transfer programs have grown increasingly popular and are now used as interventions to target a wide array of health outcomes across many diverse settings. However, cash transfer experiments have yielded mixed results, highlighting gaps in our understanding of how these programs work. In particular, we do not yet know whether cash transfers are more effective for certain health outcomes compared to others, or are more effective for some population subgroups compared to others. Here, we ask whether the effects of cash transfers on health outcomes differ across study subgroups.
We reviewed the literature on cash transfer experiments conducted in low and middle income countries, published in English between 1985 and 2015. We documented whether the investigators reported either i) stratum-specific estimates or ii) the interaction term between subgroups and exposure to the intervention. For studies that presented stratum-specific estimates without statistical tests for heterogeneity, we assessed heterogeneity across subgroups with a Cochran Q test.
Of the 56 studies we reviewed, 40 reported effects on study subgroups. The majority of the cash transfer interventions had different magnitudes of effects on health across subgroups. This heterogeneity was often underreported or not formally analyzed. We find substantial heterogeneity of cash transfers on child health and on adult health yet little heterogeneity of cash transfers on sexual and reproductive health.
Accounting for the heterogeneous impacts of cash transfers during program design and evaluation is necessary to better target cash transfer programs and generate more precise data on their effects.
现金转移项目越来越受欢迎,现在被用作一种干预措施,以在许多不同环境中实现广泛的健康成果。然而,现金转移实验产生了喜忧参半的结果,凸显出我们对这些项目运作方式的理解存在差距。特别是,我们尚不清楚现金转移对某些健康成果是否比其他成果更有效,或者对某些人群亚组是否比其他亚组更有效。在此,我们探讨现金转移对健康成果的影响在不同研究亚组中是否存在差异。
我们回顾了1985年至2015年间以英文发表的关于在低收入和中等收入国家进行的现金转移实验的文献。我们记录了研究人员是否报告了以下两项内容之一:i)特定分层的估计值,或ii)亚组与干预暴露之间的交互项。对于那些呈现特定分层估计值但未进行异质性统计检验的研究,我们使用 Cochr an Q检验评估亚组间的异质性。
在我们回顾的56项研究中,40项报告了对研究亚组的影响。大多数现金转移干预措施对不同亚组的健康影响程度不同。这种异质性往往未得到充分报告或未进行正式分析。我们发现现金转移对儿童健康和成人健康存在显著异质性,但对性健康和生殖健康的现金转移异质性较小。
在项目设计和评估过程中考虑现金转移的异质影响,对于更好地定位现金转移项目并生成关于其效果的更精确数据是必要的。