Cochrane review: Financial benefits for child health and well‐being in low income or socially disadvantaged families in developed world countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".