The impact of conditional cash transfers on the control of neglected tropical disease: a systematic review
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background:
Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are diseases of poverty and affect 1.5 billion people globally. Conditional cash transfer (CCTs) programmes alleviate poverty in many countries, potentially contributing to improved NTD outcomes. This systematic review examines the relationship between CCTs and screening, incidence or treatment outcomes of NTDs.
Methods:
A systematic review was carried out. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, EconLit, Global Health, and grey literature websites were systematically searched in September 2020 with no date or language restrictions. Controlled quantitative studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating CCT interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were included. Any outcome measures related to the WHO’s 20 diseases classified as NTDs were included. Two authors extracted data from published studies and appraised risk of biases using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias 2 tools. Results were analysed narratively. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020202480.
Findings:
From the search, 5165 records were identified. Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion covering four CCTs in Brazil, the Philippines, Mexico and Zambia. Most studies were either RCTs or quasi-experimental studies and ten were assessed to be of moderate quality. Seven studies reported improved NTD outcomes associated with CCTs – particularly reduced incidence of leprosy and increased uptake of deworming treatments. There was some evidence of greater benefit in lower socioeconomic groups but sub-group analysis was limited. Methodological weaknesses include self-reported outcomes, missing data, improper randomisation and differences between CCT and comparator populations in observational studies. The available evidence is currently limited, covering a small proportion of CCTs and NTDs.
Interpretation:
CCTs can be associated with improved NTD outcomes, and could be driven by both improvements in living standards from cash benefits and direct health effects from conditionalities related to healthcare use. This evidence adds to the knowledge of health-improving impacts from CCTs in poor and vulnerable populations.
Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are diseases of poverty and affect 1.5 billion people globally. Conditional cash transfer (CCTs) programmes alleviate poverty in many countries, potentially contributing to improved NTD outcomes. This systematic review examines the relationship between CCTs and screening, incidence or treatment outcomes of NTDs.
Methods:
A systematic review was carried out. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, EconLit, Global Health, and grey literature websites were systematically searched in September 2020 with no date or language restrictions. Controlled quantitative studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating CCT interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were included. Any outcome measures related to the WHO’s 20 diseases classified as NTDs were included. Two authors extracted data from published studies and appraised risk of biases using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias 2 tools. Results were analysed narratively. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020202480.
Findings:
From the search, 5165 records were identified. Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion covering four CCTs in Brazil, the Philippines, Mexico and Zambia. Most studies were either RCTs or quasi-experimental studies and ten were assessed to be of moderate quality. Seven studies reported improved NTD outcomes associated with CCTs – particularly reduced incidence of leprosy and increased uptake of deworming treatments. There was some evidence of greater benefit in lower socioeconomic groups but sub-group analysis was limited. Methodological weaknesses include self-reported outcomes, missing data, improper randomisation and differences between CCT and comparator populations in observational studies. The available evidence is currently limited, covering a small proportion of CCTs and NTDs.
Interpretation:
CCTs can be associated with improved NTD outcomes, and could be driven by both improvements in living standards from cash benefits and direct health effects from conditionalities related to healthcare use. This evidence adds to the knowledge of health-improving impacts from CCTs in poor and vulnerable populations.
Date Issued
2022-05-01
Date Acceptance
2022-02-04
Citation
The Lancet Global Health, 2022, 10 (5), pp.e640-e648
ISSN
2214-109X
Publisher
Elsevier
Start Page
e640
End Page
e648
Journal / Book Title
The Lancet Global Health
Volume
10
Issue
5
Copyright Statement
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Sponsor
Commission of the European Communities
Grant Number
633666
Subjects
Developing Countries
Humans
Income
Poverty
Socioeconomic Factors
Vulnerable Populations
0605 Microbiology
1117 Public Health and Health Services
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2022-04-12