Table 2.
Description of the qualitative papers on the impacts of the BFP according with the seven themes and subthemes (N = 50) (the number within the table represent the study's reference)
| Themes | Age range of participants | Sample data source | Results | Conclusions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary data | Secondary data | |||||
| Poverty (n = 20) | ||||||
| Macroeconomic variables and household income (n = 9) | Adults | 3c, 13c, 36cd, 64, 69, 80 | - | People form a riverside population in the Amazon stated that the BFP helped in the economic organization of families and provided a greater sense of stability (80). A study with beneficiaries of the city of Campinas (São Paulo State) revealed that beneficiaries stated the relevance of the Program as “help” and “complement” in income (69), while for beneficiaries of Carnaubal (Rio Grande do Norte State), and a riverside community of São Carlos (Rondônia State) the BFP assisted in the acquisition of food (36, 40) and the permanence of people in the field/cultivation of land (40). Beneficiaries pointed that the Program was a regular income opportunity, able to minimize the effects of seasonality, expressed in temporary jobs, mainly in agricultural activities (32). According to beneficiaries’ speeches, this family per capita income is essential for them to have no concern with the quantity or quality of their families’ diet and their own (9). According to unit health professionals, the BFP reduced poverty amongst beneficiaries (13). Beneficiary mothers stated that the Program gave them the possibility to offer their children consumption of goods that they did not have the opportunity to acquire throughout their lives (64). Also, beneficiaries affirmed that BFP had positive effects on living conditions through the use of resources to meet: (a) basic needs; (b) payment of water and electricity bills; (c) payment in installments for durable goods; and (d) payment of language courses and professional qualification. Otherwise, it can stimulate household indebtedness (3) | In all nine studies, beneficiaries said that BFP had positive impact on family income in different populations | |
| All ages | 9cd | - | ||||
| NPb | 32c, 40c | - | ||||
| Social inclusion (n = 9) | Adults | 3c, 36cd, 75 | 53c | In four different studies, BFP beneficiaries stated a positive impact of the Program on the purchase of products, such as school supplies, clothing, and shoes (36), consumption of goods and services of a private nature (24, 53, 75), and expansion of inclusion in socialization spaces, such as schools, health centers and commerce (32). Beneficiaries reported that they had better access to schools, formal markets and transport networks compared to the period prior to receipt (33). According to them, the Program allowed access to universal services, which generated a perception of improvement in the self-esteem and happiness of the beneficiaries. However, respondents felt stigmatized for being beneficiaries of a cash transfer policy (46). Beneficiaries said that BFP contributed to their autonomy, allowing to overcome important forms of social deprivation (48). They also said that BFP improved their self-assessment as a consumer, as a bank card holder and/or as the one who was able to pay his bills on time (3) | Beneficiaries felt that the BFP positively impacted their social inclusion, according to all the nine articles | |
| NPb | 24c, 32c, 33, 46, 48 | - | ||||
| Food quality (n = 1) | Adults | 93 | - | In a study with 38 beneficiaries of Curitiba Municipality, participants reported low variability in food intake (93) | Beneficiaries reported a negative impact of the BFP on the variability of food intake | |
| Food insecurity (n = 1) | Adults | 55 | - | Beneficiary families declared a positive impact on access to food, with improvements in their well-being, standard/quality of life and on the development of credit practices (finance the consumption), important aspects to combat food insecurity (55) | Beneficiaries felt that BFP contributed to the reduction of food insecurity | |
| Gender equality (n = 18) | ||||||
| Gender roles, stereotypes (n = 4) | Adults | - | 53c | Women beneficiaries declared that the BFP tended to reinforce traditional gender roles (32, 53), such as the greater presence of women in the domestic sphere (24). Women beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the BFP attributed moral judgments to the different beneficiary families, such as the perception that “new mothers have less legitimacy than the others” and that “if the family has many assets, it means that the family does not configure itself as ‘poor’ and, therefore, does not deserve the aid” (45) | Beneficiary women declared stereotypes and/or negative moral judgments/pre-judgments in relation to them | |
| All ages | 45 | - | ||||
| NPb | 24c, 32c | - | ||||
| Violence against women (n = 3) | Adults | 3c, 41cd | The qualitative component of one mixed method study with 13 people indicated that the BFP had heterogeneous responses about impacts of BFP on violence, such as it can increase, decrease, or have no influence on intimate partner violence (IPV) (41). A second study with 31 beneficiaries and BFP`s managers showed that BFP makes possible to promote improvements in domestic situations of embarrassment, harassment, and violence against women (3). A study with data extracted from the 2009 National Household Sample Survey indicated that the BFP tended to increase violence against women (51) | Beneficiaries perceived the possibility of promoting positive changes in family atmosphere, according to one study. The results about impacts on violence against women were heterogeneous | ||
| NPb | - | 51 | ||||
| Women’s empowerment (n = 11) | Adults | 3c, 16, 23, 52, 54c | - |
Women beneficiaries of the BFP reported that the benefit contributed to greater financial autonomy and improvement of empowerment (3, 16, 23, 40, 52) and social recognition and dignity (78). One article showed that BFP had meaningful impacts on women’s control over decision making, but with considerable heterogeneity (26). Beneficiaries reported that BFP helped minimizing the vulnerability and deprivation of women, which did not have to submit to jobs often offered almost free of charge on the job market (32) Beneficiary women affirmed that they did not feel discouraged from seeking employment, which challenges the idea of a possible “laziness effect” (54). When questioned (the beneficiaries) about the means to achieve a dignified life, the most cited set was “education-work-money” (43). A study on racial issues pointed out that the BFP exerted more influence on the daily lives of black women compared to white women, however, without impact of equalizing the situation between black and white women (44) |
The BFP tends to contribute to improve the self-esteem of women beneficiaries, as well as to their greater financial autonomy, despite heterogeneity in the results | |
| NPb | 32c, 40c, 43, 44 | 26, 78 | ||||
| Education (n = 7) | ||||||
| School enrolment, approval and dropout (n = 5) | School age | - | 34 | Mothers said that children and adolescent beneficiaries of BFP remained in school at the expense of working in the field, allowing them to continue their studies (70). Mothers report that because of BFP, the incentive to study prevails to the detriment of work (24). Also, the Program provided an increase in the number of students enrolled (34). Based on the beneficiaries’ speeches, a study showed that young participants and those with a certain level of education see fewer costs and greater benefits in returning to school than older beneficiary people (9). Beneficiaries said that BFP enhanced their enrollment in free courses, such as: computer course, caregivers for the elderly and children, and industrial sewing (32) | Beneficiaries felt that BFP contributed to permanence of children and adolescents in school. Young beneficiaries and those with a certain level of education see fewer costs and greater benefits in returning to school than older people | |
| Adults | 70 | - | ||||
| All ages | 9cd | - | ||||
| NPb | 24c, 32c | - | ||||
| School attendance (n = 2) | School age | 13c | - | According to primary care professionals, the BFP increased school attendance of children (13). Beneficiaries said that the BFP, besides having practical effects on their children’s school attendance and schooling, strengthens feelings of belonging and social recognition on the part of the beneficiaries, generated by the fulfillment of education requirements (68) | Beneficiary mothers and primary care professionals said that there was a positive impact of BFP on the school attendance of children and adolescents | |
| NPb | 68 | |||||
| Employability (n = 3) | ||||||
| Participation in the labor market (n = 3) | Adults | 3c, 49, 54c | - | Women said that obtaining permanent income from the BFP increases the possibility of rejecting occupations in informal, underpaid, and devalued jobs, with repercussions on the prospect of more valued jobs (54). Similarly, other beneficiaries said that BFP ensures the possibility of subsistence of poor families excluded from protected work, previously dependent on donations and/or favors, or whose subsistence implied submission to working conditions considered unworthy and/or of very low remuneration (3). Otherwise, in other study, beneficiaries did not identified changes regarding the insertion in the labor market after inclusion in the Program (49) | Two studies showed that according to beneficiaries, BFP was associated with increased participation of adults in the labor market, while in a third study, users pointed no changes | |
| Health (n = 1) | ||||||
| Utilization of health services (n = 1) | Adults | 13c | - | One study showed that the BFP favored the creation and/or strengthening of ties between users and health professionals and increased the frequency of families in the Family Health Units, but professionals reported difficulties in monitoring conditionalities (13) | Positive changes were observed in the relationship between families and services, but monitoring seems to be a challenge | |
| Teenage pregnancy (n = 1) | ||||||
| Access to contraceptive methods (n = 1) | Adults | 71 | - | In a study with five female beneficiaries, only two said that they were able to obtain the sterilization they were seeking, which shows a lack of access to reproductive rights (71) | In general, beneficiaries said that the BFP did not contribute to access to women's reproductive rights | |
All the references are presented on the supplementary chart 2; NPb = not presented; c These studies are in more than one category and/or subcategory; d Mixed methods study