MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2022566818 · doi:10.1002/ebch.376

Cochrane review: Financial benefits for child health and well‐being in low income or socially disadvantaged families in developed world countries

2009· article· en· W2022566818 sur OpenAlexaff
Patricia J Lucas, Karen McIntosh, Mark Petticrew, Helen Roberts, Alan Shiell

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDisadvantagedPsycINFOCochrane LibraryPovertyMEDLINEChild povertyMedicineMental healthRandomized controlled trialPsychologyFamily medicinePsychiatryEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background A strong and consistent relationship has been observed between relative poverty and poor child health and wellbeing even among rich nations. This review set out to examine evidence that additional monies provided to poor or disadvantaged families may benefit children by reducing relative poverty and thereby improving children's health, well‐being and educational attainment. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of direct provision of additional monies to socially or economically disadvantaged families in improving children's health, well‐being and educational attainment Search strategy In total 10 electronic databases were searched including the Cochrane library searched 2006 (Issue 1), Medline searched 1966 to May 2006 , Econlit searched 1969 to June 2006 and PsycINFO searched 1872 to June 2006, together with 3 libraries of working papers (MDRC, SSRN, SRDC). The general search strategy was [terms for income and financial benefits] and [paediatric terms] and [RCT filter] Selection criteria Studies selected provided money to relatively poor families (which included a child under the age of 18 or a pregnant woman), were randomised or quasi‐randomised, measured outcomes related to child health or wellbeing and were conducted in a high income country. Data collection and analysis Titles and abstracts identified in the search were independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. Data were extracted and entered into RevMan, synthesised and presented in both written and graphical form (forest plots). Main results Nine trials including more than 25,000 participants were included in this review. No effect was observed on child health, measures of child mental health or emotional state. Non‐significant effects favouring the intervention group were seen for child cognitive development and educational achievement, and a non‐significant effect favouring controls in rates of teenage pregnancy. Authors' conclusions The review set out to examine the potential of financial support to poor families to improve circumstances for children. However, on the basis of current evidence we can not state unequivocally whether financial benefits delivered as an intervention are effective at improving child health or wellbeing in the short term. Our conclusions are limited by the fact that most of the studies had small effects on total household income and that while no conditions were attached to how money was spent, all studies included strict conditions for receipt of payments. We note particular concerns by some authors that sanctions and conditions (such as working hours) placed on families may increase family stress. Plain Language Summary Financial support may not improve health of low‐income children in rich countries The association between low income and poor outcome in all dimensions of child health is strong and consistent across countries and time. Disadvantage in childhood is often associated with lifetime poor outcomes. This review aimed to assess whether additional monies provided to socially or economically disadvantaged families could affect children's health, well‐being and educational attainment. Nine studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. There was tentative evidence of benefit in early language development, but given lack of effect on all other outcomes authors conclude that the evidence did not show an effect on child outcomes in the short to medium term in response to direct financial benefits to families. In the context of the monetary value of interventions observed, and the conditions placed on receipt of benefits authors conclude this is a statement of "no evidence of effect" rather than of "evidence of no effect". Implications for research and practice are noted.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,017
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,228
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0170,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,420
Écart entre enseignants0,377 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalMême sujetChild and Adolescent HealthTravaux en français237 207