for the main comparison.
| Unconditional cash transfer in humanitarian disasters compared with no unconditional cash transfer (or co‐intervention only) for improving use of health services and health outcomes | ||||||
|
Population: children and adults in low‐ and middle‐income countries Settings: drought Intervention: unconditional cash transfer Comparison: no unconditional cash transfer (or co‐intervention only) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk No unconditional cash transfer (or co‐intervention only) | Corresponding risk Unconditional cash transfer a | |||||
| Received vitamin or iron supplements Z‐score of proportion (follow‐up: 8 to 9 months) | The mean proportion of participants who received vitamin or iron supplements in the control group was 0.75 |
The mean proportion of participants who received vitamin or iron supplements in the intervention group was 0.10 SDs higher (0.06 to 0.14 higher) (very small effect) |
— | 3326 children (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low |
Better indicated by higher values Quality of evidence downgraded due to risk of bias (minus one grade)b and very serious indirectness (minus two grades)c |
| Received deworming drugs Z‐score of proportion (follow‐up: 8 to 9 months) | The mean proportion of participants who received deworming drugs in the control group was 0.59 |
The mean proportion of participants who received deworming drugs in the intervention group was 0.04 SDs higher (0.01 lower to 0.09 higher) (small effect) |
— | 3326 children (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low |
Better indicated by higher values Quality of evidence downgraded due to risk of bias (minus one grade)b, very serious indirectness (minus two grades)c and serious imprecision (minus one grade)d |
| Died Mortality rate per 10,000 child‐months (follow‐up: 4 months) | 57 per 10,000 |
15 per 10,000 (6 to 37) |
HR 0.26 (0.10 to 0.66) |
2885 children (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low |
Better indicated by lower values Quality of evidence downgraded due to observational evidence (minus two grades), serious risk of bias (minus one grade)b and very serious indirectness (minus two grades)c |
| Height for age Z‐score of number (follow‐up: 8 to 9 months) | The mean height for age z‐score in the control group was − 1.08 |
The mean height for age z‐score in the intervention group was 0.06 SDs higher (0.01 lower to 0.13 higher) |
— | 3326 children (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low |
Better indicated by higher values Quality of evidence downgraded due to risk of bias (minus one grade)b, very serious indirectness (minus two grades)c, and serious imprecision (minus one grade)e |
| Number of days sick in bed Z‐score of number (follow‐up: 8 to 9 months) | The mean number of days sick in bed in the control group was 0.62 |
The mean number of days sick in bed in the intervention group was 0.36 SDs lower (0.62 to 0.10 lower) (moderate effect) |
— | 3326 children (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low |
Better indicated by lower values Quality of evidence downgraded due to risk of bias (minus one grade)b and very serious indirectness (minus two grades)c |
| Became severely acutely malnourished Incidence of first event per 1000 child months (follow‐up: 4 months) | 23 per 1000 |
10 per 1000 (6 to 19) |
HR 0.44 (0.24 to 0.80) |
2885 children (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low |
Better indicated by lower values Quality of evidence downgraded due to observational evidence (minus two grades), serious risk of bias (minus one grade)b and very serious indirectness (minus two grades)c |
| Level of depression Z‐score of Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression score. Scale: from 0 to 80. (follow‐up: 8 to 9 months) | The mean level of depression score in the control group was 11.88 points (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression score) |
The mean level of depression score in the intervention group was 0.48 SDs lower (1.84 lower to 0.88 higher) |
— | 3326 adults (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low |
Better indicated by higher values Quality of evidence downgraded due to serious risk of bias (minus two grades)b, very serious indirectness (minus two grades)c and very serious imprecision (minus two grades)f |
| CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; MD: mean difference; SDs: standard deviations. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
aCalculated using the formulas provided in the GRADE handbook (Schünemann 2009). bAllocation not concealed, unblinded, and potential contamination. cThe only evidence found was conducted in a single type of humanitarian disaster setting (i.e., droughts) and among only one type of participants (i.e., either children or adults). dLower confidence limit indicates a potential non‐meaningful effect. eLower confidence limit indicates potentially no effect, whereas upper confidence limit indicates a potential small beneficial effect. fLower confidence limit indicates a potential large adverse effect, whereas upper confidence limit indicates a potential moderate beneficial effect.