MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240476987 · doi:10.4073/csr.2008.9

Financial Benefits for Child Health and Well‐Being in Low Income or Socially Disadvantaged Families in Developed World Countries

2008· article· en· W4240476987 on OpenAlexafffund
Patricia J Lucas, Karen McIntosh, Mark Petticrew, Helen Roberts, Alan Shiell

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of BristolUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsDisadvantagedReceiptPovertyDisadvantagePsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Educational attainmentPsychologyEconomic growthBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyPsychiatryAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 systematic 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. 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 & 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. Reviewers’ 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.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207