Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 28;2020(7):CD011504. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011504.pub2

Summary of findings 1. Unconditional cash transfers compared to no intervention for food security.

Unconditional cash transfers compared to no intervention for food security
Patient or population: children, adults, households
Setting: poor rural and urban households in LMICs
Intervention: UCTs
Comparison: no intervention
Outcomes Impact № of participants
(studies) Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Prevalence of undernourishment 0 included studies measured this outcome.
Proportion of household expenditure on food
follow‐up: range 1–2 years 1 study showed a clear effect favouring UCTs, 2 studies showed unclear effect potentially favouring UCTs and 2 studies showed clear effect favouring the control. Data not pooled. 11271 households
(5 RCTs) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b,c Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food.
Food security
assessed with: proportion of households consuming > 1 meal per day; modified HFIAS; FSI
follow‐up: range 1–2 years 6 studies showed a clear effect favouring UCTs.
A meta‐analysis of 3 of these studies showed a small improvement in food security scores (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.23; 6209 households)
10,251 households, 7604 children (6 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊕⊕
High UCTs improve food security.
Dietary diversity
assessed with: dietary diversity scores (i.e. number of food groups consumed); proportion with minimum dietary diversity
follow‐up: range 1–2 years 5 studies showed a clear effect favouring UCTs and 5 studies show an unclear effect potentially favouring UCTs.
Data not pooled.
12,631 households, 890 children (10 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b UCTs may increase dietary diversity.
Stunting
assessed with: HAZ < –2SD
follow‐up: 2 years 1 study showed a clear effect favouring UCTs, 2 studies showed an unclear effect favouring UCTs and 1 study showed an unclear effect favouring the control.
A meta‐analysis of 2 of these studies showed a reduction in stunting with UCTs (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84; 2914 children)
4713 children
(4 RCTs) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b UCTs may reduce stunting.
Wasting
assessed with: WHZ < –2SD
follow‐up: range 2 years 1 study showed an unclear effect potentially favouring UCTs and 3 studies showed an unclear effect potentially favouring the control. Data not pooled. 6396 children
(4 RCTs) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b,c We are uncertain whether UCTs reduce wasting.
Cognitive function and development
assessed with: cognitive test scores, language scores
follow‐up: 2 years 3 studies reported unclear effect potentially favouring intervention. 10,813 children
(3 RCTs)
⊕⊕⊕⊕
High UCTs make little or no difference on cognitive function and development.
*No meta‐analyses carried out.
CI: confidence interval; FSI: Food Security Index; HAZ: height‐for‐age z‐score; HFIAS: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale; LMIC: low‐ and middle‐income country; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SD: standard deviation; SMD: standardised mean difference; UCT: unconditional cash transfer; WHZ: weight‐for‐height z‐score.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHigh certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

aDowngraded one level for risk of bias: at least one study was at high overall risk of bias due to selection or attrition bias, or both.
bDowngraded one level for inconsistency: there was wide variance of point estimates.
cDowngraded one level for imprecision: wide confidence intervals.