2.

Unconditional cash transfer compared with in‐kind transfer for improving use of health services and health outcomes
Population: children and adults in low‐ and middle‐income countries Settings: droughts Intervention: unconditional cash transfer Comparison: in‐kind transfer
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk In‐kindtransfer	Corresponding risk Unconditional cash transfer a
Received vitamin or iron supplements	—	—	—	—	—	No evidence available on this outcome
Received deworming drugs	—	—	—	—	—	No evidence available on this outcome
Died Mortality rate per 10,000 child‐months (follow‐up: 4 months)	26 per 10,000b	58 per 10,000 (18 to 189)	HR 2.27 (0.69 to 7.44)b, c	3044 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)d, very serious indirectness (minus two grades)e, and very serious imprecision (minus two grades)f
Height for age	—	—	—	—	—	No evidence available on this outcome
Number of days sick in bed	—	—	—	—	—	No evidence available on this outcome
Became severely acutely malnourished Incidence of first event per 1000 child months (follow‐up: 4 months)	17 per 1000b	20 per 1000 (11 to 34)	HR 1.15 (0.67 to 1.99)b, g	3044 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)d, very serious indirectness (minus two grades)e, and very serious imprecision (minus two grades)f
Level of depression	—	—	—	—	—	No evidence available on this outcome
CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio
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).
 ^bThese estimates are from comparison 5 of the unconditional cash transfer with the most generous in‐kind transfer (see Table 3 for description of comparison) (Langendorf 2013).
 ^cThe alternative treatment effect estimates from comparisons 3 and 4 (see Table 3 for description of comparisons) were HRs of 0.81 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.66) and 1.74 (95% CI 0.88 to 3.47), respectively (Langendorf 2013).
 ^dAllocation not concealed, unblinded, and potential contamination.
 ^eThe only evidence found was conducted in only one type of humanitarian disaster setting (i.e., droughts) and among only one type of participants (i.e., children).
 ^fLower confidence limits indicate potential beneficial effects, whereas upper confidence limits indicate potential adverse effects.
 ^gThe alternative treatment effect estimates from comparisons 3 and 4 (see Table 3 for description of comparisons) were HRs of 0.84 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.44) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.35), respectively (Langendorf 2013).