Table 1.

Summary of key parameters and findings of recent reviews (2009–2015) linking cash transfers to child nutrition outcomes

Authors (year)	Type of review	Years covered	Inclusion criteria	Number of studies included	Regions (countries)	Summary of child nutrition impacts
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Fernald et al. (2012)*	Systematic	2000–2012	• CCTs and UCTs • Quantitative studies • Experimental or quasi-experimental design	37	LA (6) SSA (2)	• Small but positive impacts of CCTs on height/HAZ for full population and/or in particular subpopulations; Evidence for UCTs is inconclusive. • Mixed evidence on impacts of CCTs on weight, with the majority of studies finding no significant impacts or impacts only in subpopulations.
Lagarde et al. (2009)*	Systematic	2000–2006	• CCTs • Quantitative studies • Experimental, quasi-experimental, before-and-after studies	6	LA (4)	• Positive impacts on children’s growth (CCTs increase height by ~1cm among children <4 years old), however 2 studies found no impact or a decrease in HAZ-scores.
Leroy et al. (2009)*	Systematic	2003–2008	• CCTs • Quantitative studies • Experimental or quasi-experimental design	7	LA (5)	• Positive impacts of CCTs on linear growth in 3 out of 5 countries. • No impact of CCTs on any nutritional indicator in 2 countries.
Manley et al. (2012)*	Meta-analysis	1995–2012	• CCTs and UCTs • Experimental or quasi-experimental design • Contain original numerical impact estimates on children’s HAZ and/or WHZ	24	LA (6) SA (3) SSA (1)	• Positive but insignificant impacts on HAZ (0.04 SD, not significantly different from zero). • The impacts of UCTs and CCTs on HAZ are roughly comparable.
Owusu-Addo & Cross (2014)*	Systematic	2000–2013	• CCTs • Quantitative studies • Experimental, quasi-experimental, before-and-after studies	16	LA (5) SSA (1)	• Positive impacts in 4 out of 5 CCTs on nutritional outcomes of height, weight and stunting for children <5 years.
van den Bold et al. (2013)*	Evidence	1990–2012	• CCTs and UCTs • Quantitative, qualitative and mixed- methods studies • Experimental or quasi-experimental design	~15	LA (5) SSA (1)	• Positive but insignificant impacts of CCTs on anthropometry. Stronger impacts are found primarily among younger and poorer populations, or those exposed for a longer duration. • Positive impacts of UCTs on child HAZ, however limited evidence base.

Notes:

^*indicates peer-reviewed publications, rather than a working paper or draft. Reviews typically examine child nutrition outcomes among samples of children <5 years of age, however some deviate from this population, as noted in text. Column 5 indicates the number of studies which examine the link between cash transfers and nutritional indicators, however the full review may include a larger set of studies. Nutritional indicators studied are typically HAZ, WHZ or WAZ. LA = Latin America, SA = South Asia, SSA = sub-Saharan Africa; CCT = conditional cash transfer, UCT = unconditional cash transfer; HAZ = height-for-age z-score, WHZ = weight-for-height z-score, WAZ = weight-for-age z-score.