Summary of findings 6. Social support compared to no intervention for food security.
| Social support compared to no intervention for food security | ||||
| Patient or population: households at risk of food insecurity Setting: poor communities in LMICs Intervention: village savings and loans groups and community cash transfers Comparison: no intervention | ||||
| Outcomes | Impact | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
| Prevalence of undernourishment | — | — | — | 0 included studies reported this outcome. |
| Proportion of household expenditure on food | — | — | — | 0 included studies reported this outcome. |
| Food security assessed with: self‐reported months of food sufficiency follow‐up: 3 years | 1 study reported an unclear effect favouring village savings and loans | 1687 households (1 prospective controlled study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa | The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loan on food security. |
| Dietary diversity assessed with: HDDS follow‐up: 3 years | 1 study showed an unclear effect favouring the control. | 1615 households (1 prospective controlled study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa | The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loan on dietary diversity. |
|
Stunting assessed with: HAZ < –2SD follow‐up: 2 years |
1 study showed an unclear effect favouring the control. | 1481 children (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb,c |
Community grants may make little or no difference to stunting. |
|
Wasting assessed with: WHZ < –2SD follow‐up: 2 years |
1 study showed an unclear effect favouring a community grant programme. | 1481 children (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderateb |
Community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting. |
| Cognitive function and development | — | — | — | 0 included studies reported this outcome. |
| *No meta‐analyses carried out. CI: confidence interval; HAZ: height‐for‐age z‐score; HDDS: Household Dietary Diversity Score; LMIC: low‐ and middle‐income country; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SD: standard deviation; WHZ: weight‐for‐height z‐score. | ||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High 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 indirectness: results from a single study which assessed the effects of microfinance program to villages in Mozambique. Effects of other types of social support interventions may be different. As this was a prospective controlled study the certainty of evidence started at low. bDowngraded one level for indirectness: results are from a single study which assessed the effects of a community cash transfer programme implemented in rural villages in Indonesia. Village management teams allocated funds to different types of social support interventions, Effects in urban populations and with different intervention implementation may differ.
cDowngraded one level for imprecision: wide confidence interval.