Table 2.

Characteristics of included studies

Author (year)	Study design	Outcomes	Country	Setting	TB HBC	Income classification
Ciobanu et al.21	Cohort	Treatment success; number of people with TB receiving incentives; types of incentives among those who received them	Moldova	Mixed	No	LMIC
Ukwaja et al.22	Cohort	Treatment success; determinants of successful outcomes	Nigeria	Rural	Yes	LMIC
Oliosi et al.23	Cohort	Treatment outcomes	Brazil	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Torrens et al.24	Cohort	Treatment success	Brazil	Mixed	Yes	UMIC
Rohit et al.25	Cohort	Treatment outcomes	India	Mixed	Yes	LMIC
Priedeman Skiles et al.26	Cohort	Loss to follow-up; program impact on treatment default*	Ukraine	Mixed	Yes	LMIC
Klein et al.27	Cohort	Treatment success	Argentina	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Malacarne et al.28	Case–control	Treatment success	Brazil	Peri-urban	Yes	UMIC
Bhavesh et al.29	Cohort	Utilization of social protection program; treatment success	India	Urban	Yes	LMIC
Mansour et al.30	Cohort	Lost to follow-up (defined as unable to be located, never started treatment after diagnosis confirmed or treatment interrupted after > 2 months)	Kenya	Mixed	Yes	LMIC
Bhatt et al.31	Cohort	Treatment success	India	Urban	Yes	LMIC
Samuel et al.32	Cohort	Treatment success	India	Mixed	Yes	LMIC
Durovni et al.33	Cohort	Treatment outcomes	Brazil	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Rudgard et al.34	Cross-section survey	Financial hardship†	Brazil	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Chirico et al.35	Case control	Clinical and epidemiological differences between people with TB included versus not included in the social protection regimen; treatment success	Argentina	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Zhao et al.36	Observational	Financial burden of transportation; recipient’s perceptions of social protection intervention	China	Rural	Yes	UMIC
Soares et al.37	Observational	Treatment success	Brazil	Urban	Yes	LMIC
Kaliakbarova et al.38	Observational	Treatment success; recipient satisfaction with social protection program	Kazakhstan	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Rogers et al.39	Cohort	Treatment success	Liberia	–	No	LIC
De Souza et al.40	Ecological study	TB mortality rate, obtained by national databases41	Brazil	–	Yes	UMIC
Reis-Santos et al.42	Longitudinal database study	TB cure; broader clinical and social determinants of TB treatment outcomes	Brazil	Mixed	Yes	UMIC
Contreras et al.43	Cohort	Socioeconomic needs of recipients of the social protection program “TB Cero”; how “TB Cero” social protection intervention addresses socioeconomic needs through qualitative evaluation	Peru	Peri-urban	No	UMIC
Ngamvithayapong-Yanai et al.44	Observational	Treatment outcomes	Thailand	Urban	Yes	LMIC
Diaw et al.45	Observational	Treatment outcomes; retention of recipients enrolled in program	Senegal	Rural	Yes	LIC
Wingfield et al.46	Cohort study and RCT	Quantify prevalence of catastrophic costs; national TB control program-confirmed TB cure in people with TB	Peru	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Lutge et al.47	Unblinded cluster RCT	Treatment outcomes; loss to follow-up and treatment failure rate	South Africa	Mixed	Yes	UMIC
Carter et al.48	Quasi-experimental	TB treatment success	Brazil	Mixed	Yes	UMIC
Wei et al.49	Quasi-experimental	Cost to person with TB‡; Cost-effectiveness of the social protection program	China	Urban	No	MIC
Wingfield et al.50	RCT	Catastrophic costs	Peru	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Wingfield et al.51	RCT	Initiation of TB preventive therapy; treatment success	Peru	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Ukwaja et al.52	Qualitative	Recipients’ experience of social protection intervention	Nigeria	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Orlandi et al.53	Qualitative	Perceived influence of social incentive on treatment adherence among healthcare professionals	Brazil	Urban	Yes	UMIC
George et al.54	Qualitative	Analysis of support services available to people with TB	India	Rural	Yes	LMIC
Patel et al.55	Mixed methods	Receipt of cash transfer; time to receipt of first cash transfer	India	Urban	Yes	LMIC
Yin et al.56	Mixed methods	Treatment outcomes; TB treatment adherence§	China	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Li et al.57	Mixed methods	Access to TB diagnosis and treatment; affordability of TB treatment to person with TB	China	Urban	Yes	UMIC
Xiang et al.58	Mixed methods	Reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs; catastrophic health expenditure¶	China	Rural	Yes	UMIC
Sripad et al.59	Mixed methods	Recipients’ perceptions of social protection program activities available to them; TB treatment adherenceǁ	Ecuador	Mixed	No	MIC

HBC = high-burden country; LMIC = low- and middle-income countries; MIC = middle-income countries; RCT = randomized controlled study; TB = tuberculosis; UMIC = upper middle-income countries.

^*Treatment default was defined as anyone who missed treatment for more than 60 days per WHO standards.

^†Financial hardship = total costs exceeding 20% of preillness annual household income and/or relying on a negative financial coping strategy (i.e., taking a loan or selling assets); and/or total costs that are impoverishing (incurring total monthly costs that pushed preillness monthly household income per capita below Brazil’s 2016 poverty line [USD 48.6 per month]).

^‡Patient costs = defined as direct medical (clinics, medicines, tests) and nonmedical (travel, food) out-of-pocket payments.

^§Adherence = taking medications 26 days per month up for up to 24 months.

^¶Catastrophic health expenditure was defined as 10% of annual family income.

^ǁAdherence was measured using interruption; anytime during the entire treatment period that two doses of treatment were missed for at least 2 weeks but less than 2 consecutive months.