Skip to main content
Download PDF

Relationship of cash transfers with risk of overweight and obesity in children and adults: a systematic review

BMC Public Health volume 22, Article number: 1190 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Cash transfer (CT) programs are an important type of social protection meant to reduce poverty. Whether CT programs increase the risk of overweight and obesity is unclear. The objective was to characterize the relationship between CT programs and the risk of overweight and obesity in children and adults.

Methods

We searched articles in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, EconLit, Global Health, CINAHL Plus, IBSS, Health & Medical Collection, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHO Global Index Medicus in August 2021. Studies involving CT as the intervention, a control group, body mass index, overweight, or obesity as an outcome, and sample size > 300 were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment.

Results

Of 2355 articles identified, 20 met the inclusion criteria. Because of marked heterogeneity in methodology, a narrative synthesis was used to present results. Thirteen of the studies reported that CT programs were associated with a significantly lower risk of overweight and obesity, eight studies showed no significant association, and one study reported a significantly increased risk of obesity in women. Quality assessment showed that most studies lacked sample size and power calculations, validation of exposure, descriptions of non-respondents or those lost to follow-up, and blinded outcome assessment.

Conclusions

Overall, the studies were suggestive that CT programs either have no impact or decrease the risk of overweight and/or obesity in children, adolescents, and adults, but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence. This review demonstrated limitations in the available studies of CT programs and overweight/obesity.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Worldwide, approximately 8.2% of the population, or an estimated 630 million people were living in extreme poverty (< US $1.90/day) in 2019 [1, 2]. An additional ~ 97 million people fell into poverty in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. Social protection programs, which provide an important safety net for those living in poverty, comprise a wide variety of measures such as cash transfer (CT) programs, school feeding, public works programs, pensions, and unemployment insurance [4]. Social protection is a fundamental part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 1 to end poverty in all its forms everywhere. The goal includes the implementation of nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all to achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable by 2030 [1].

CT programs are direct, regular and predictable non-contributory payment of money to eligible individuals. CT programs can be either unconditional or conditional. In unconditional CT programs, cash is provided to beneficiaries without any specific obligations to fulfill. In conditional CT programs, cash is provided to beneficiaries under conditions such as health care and education. The World Bank reports that 142 countries have CT programs, of which 70% have unconditional CT programs and 43% have conditional CT programs [5]. The percent of gross national product (GNP) spent on social protection programs in low-, middle-, and high-income countries is 1.5%, 1.6%, and 1.9%, respectively [4]. The number of planned and actual cash CT beneficiaries is 1.8 and 1.5 billion people, respectively [6]. In 2020, over US $1.7 trillion were spent on social protection programs, of which CT programs accounted for 42% of programs, or about US $700 billion [6]. The amount of spending and number of recipients are increasing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic [6].

CT programs have been shown to reduce the risk of child undernutrition in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis [7]. CT programs targeted to households with young children improved linear growth and reduced stunting in lower- and middle-income countries [7]. The double burden of malnutrition, defined as the simultaneous manifestation of both undernutrition and overweight and obesity, has been increasing worldwide [8]. Whether CT programs increase the risk of the DBM has not been well characterized, mainly because few studies have examined the impact of CT programs on the DBM. However, some studies have described the relationship between CT programs and overweight and/or obesity. Whether CT programs increase the risk of overweight and obesity in children and adults is unclear. Our specific aim was to conduct a systematic review of CT programs and the risk of overweight and obesity in children and adults.

Materials and methods

For this systematic review, we searched articles in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, EconLit, Global Health, CINAHL Plus, IBSS, Health & Medical Collection, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHO Global Index Medicus in August 2021 using search terms as shown in Supplementary Table 1. In addition, we hand-searched reference lists of articles identified through the systematic search. CT programs were defined as those programs that provided direct, regular and predictable non-contributory payments of money to eligible individuals. The inclusion criteria for studies were: a control/comparison group was present in the study design, the total sample size was > 300, published after January 1, 1997, written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, and from the peer-reviewed or gray literature. The exclusion criteria for studies were: pensions, cash-for-work programs, payment-in-kind programs, CT issued in temporary emergency situations or disaster relief, CT programs limited to adults with pre-existing conditions, i.e., human immunodeficiency virus infection, diabetes, etc., or with limited disbursements (< 3).

For children < 5 y, the main outcome measures were overweight (weight-for-height > 2 standard deviation [SD] above the World Health Organization [WHO] growth standards median) and obesity (weight-for-height > 3 SD above the WHO growth standards median) [9]. For children 5–19 y, the main outcome measures were overweight (body mass index [BMI]-for-age > 1 SD above the WHO growth standards median) and overweight (BMI-for-age > 2 SD above the WHO growth standards median) [9]. For adults, the main outcome measures were body weight as a continuous variable, BMI as a continuous variable, overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) [10].

Articles from each database search were transferred into EndNote (EndNote 20, Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA), and duplicates were eliminated. Unique references were uploaded into Covidence systemic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) for title/abstract screening, full-text screening, and finally data extraction of the included studies. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers (RDS, NR). The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram was used to summarize the methods [11].

Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies and a modified NOS for cross-sectional studies [12]. The NOS for cohort studies involves evaluation of three factors by giving stars or no stars for: (1) selection (maximum 4 stars), based upon the representativeness of the exposed cohort, the selection of the non-exposed cohort, the ascertainment of exposure, and a demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the beginning of the study; (2) comparability of the exposed and nonexposed cohorts, based upon the study design or analysis controlling for confounders (maximum 2 stars); (3) outcome (maximum 3 stars), based upon the method of assessment, whether the follow-up was long enough for the outcome to occur, and the adequacy of follow-up of the cohorts. The modified NOS for cross-sectional studies involves the evaluation of three factors: (1) selection (maximum 4 stars), based upon the representativeness of the sample, the sample size, characterization of non-respondents, and ascertainment of exposure; (2) comparability (maximum 2 stars) based upon comparability of the outcome groups with controlling of confounders; (3) outcome (maximum 3 stars), based upon outcome assessment and statistical testing. The NOS gives a maximum total of 9 stars for each study. NOS assessment of each study was conducted by two independent reviewers (RDS, NR). A consensus discussion was used to reach a final agreed-upon rating for each study.

Results

The initial search of 11 databases yielded 4550 references. There were 2355 unique references after removing duplicates. Seventeen references fit the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and three additional references that fit the inclusion/exclusion were identified outside of the systematic search. A summary of the review and reasons for excluding studies are shown in the PRISMA flow chart in Fig. 1. The location, study design, methods, outcomes, and results of the twenty eligible studies are summarized in Table 1, grouped by children or adults as the target population. There were eleven studies that examined the relationship between CT programs and child overweight and/or obesity [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], eight studies that examined the relationship between CT programs and adult overweight and/or obesity [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31], and one study that characterized the relationship between CT programs and overweight and/or obesity in both children and adults [32]. The location of most of the studies was in Latin America and the Caribbean [13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 22, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 32]. Of the different major CT programs, there were four studies of Bolsa Família in Brazil [13,14,15,16], four studies of Oportunidades in Mexico [22, 27, 29, 30], two studies of Familias en Acción in Colombia [17, 32], and two studies of Juntos in Peru [18, 24]. The relationship of CT programs with BMI, overweight and/or obesity, was described in studies from South Africa [21], Japan [20], Canada [31], and the United States (Alaska) [23]. Fourteen of the studies focused on conditional CT programs [13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 22, 24, 27,28,29,30, 32], and six studies described unconditional CT programs [20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of studies evaluating the association between CT programs and overweight and/or obesity. Abbreviation: PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Full size image
Table 1 Summary of twenty studies reporting the relationship of CT programs with body weight, body mass index, overweight, and obesity
Full size table

The NOS assessment of the studies are shown in Table 2. Eleven studies used a cross-sectional design [13,14,15,16, 19,20,21, 24, 29, 31, 32]. Nine studies used a longitudinal cohort design [17, 18, 22, 23, 25,26,27,28, 30].

Table 2 Newcastle–Ottawa Scale assessment of studies
Full size table

Of the cross-sectional studies, five studies received 2–3 stars, four studies received 4–5 stars, and two studies received 6–7 stars. Of the cohort studies, one study received 2 stars, two studies received 4–5 stars, four studies received 6–7 stars, and two studies received 8 stars. The mean score of the twenty studies was 4.75 stars. Nearly all of the cross-sectional studies were representative of the specific population that was the focus of the study. Ascertainment of exposure was mainly self-report through interviews with participants. Few of the cross-sectional studies provided sample size and power calculations. Most of the studies did not describe the characteristics of non-respondents. Nearly all the cross-sectional studies used anthropometry to assess outcomes, but no studies reported that the study team members who conducted anthropometry were blinded to the exposure assessment. Most of the cross-sectional studies had comparable control groups and adjusted for covariates in the outcomes analyses. Most of the cohort studies were representative of the specific population that was the focus of the study and selected non-exposed controls from the same population. Ascertainment of exposure was by self-report through interviews in most studies.

Given the great deal of heterogeneity in target study populations, study design, statistical methods, CT programs, and outcomes (Table 1), a meta-analysis was not conducted. The relationship of CT programs with overweight and/or obesity as categorical outcomes in seventeen studies is summarized in Fig. 2. One study showed a significantly higher OR for obesity in women > 18 y whose household participated in the CT program in Colombia [28]. Thirteen studies showed that CT programs were significantly associated with lower overweight and/or obesity in children, adolescents, or adults compared with controls [14, 16, 18,19,20,21,22,23,24, 26, 29, 31, 32]. Eight studies showed no significant association between CT programs and overweight and/or obesity in the specific target groups that were studied [13, 15,16,17, 22, 24, 26, 31]. There were three studies that reported the outcome as a continuous variable. In a study from Mexico, the CT program was not associated with a significant change in BMI in adults > 70 y [25]. Another study reported that the CT program was associated with a significant decrease in BMI in a nationally representative sample of adults in Mexico [27]. Among women, aged 18–49 y participating in a community-randomized, controlled intervention trial in rural Mexico, those receiving CT had a significant increase in body weight, especially women who were already obese at baseline [30].

Fig. 2
figure 2

The association between CT programs and overweight and/or obesity as categorical outcomes in fourteen studies. Results that were statistically significant are shown as horizontal bars. Results showing no significant difference between CT programs and overweight or obesity are shown as a dot on the vertical line. Abbreviations: SE southeast, NE northeast. *Studies that report OR

Full size image

Discussion

The present review shows that the impact of CT programs on overweight and obesity in both children and adults is not conclusive due to the limited number of studies and mixed results regarding the direction of the association. Thirteen of the twenty studies showed that CT programs were significantly associated with a lower risk of overweight and obesity, while eight studies reported no significant associations. Only one study showed that a CT program was significantly associated with an increased risk of obesity, and the risk was found in women. Overall, the results are suggestive that CT programs either have no impact or decrease the risk of overweight and/or obesity in children, adolescents, and adults, but due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence.

The CT programs included in this review varied considerably by location, recipients, cash amount, and other characteristics as shown in Supporting Table 2 [33,34,35,36,37]. Most of the conditional CT programs included the present review are located in Latin America and the Caribbean. There was only one study of the association of CT programs with overweight and obesity from Africa [21], although there are currently over forty CT programs in Africa [6]. No CT programs from Asia were identified through the systematic search in the present study.

Overall, the quality of the studies as assessed by the NOS not high, with an average score of 4.75 out of a 9 star rating. The quality evaluation of the studies using the NOS assessment revealed several weaknesses in study design that could be addressed in future research conducted with CT programs, including provision of sample size and power calculations, using measures to ensure blinding of study team members who are measuring the outcomes using anthropometry, describing the characteristics of subjects who are lost to follow-up or refuse participation, and validating the measure of exposure.

A recent meta-analysis showed that CT programs have a small but significant impact on reducing stunting by 2.1% [7]. Another recent review of experimental or quasi-experimental studies showed the CT programs increased birthweight, although the number of studies was small [38]. The double burden of malnutrition, which is the simultaneous manifestation of both undernutrition and overweight and obesity, can occur on the individual, household, and population level [8]. CT programs appear to reduce undernutrition [7, 38], and overall, the twenty studies in the present analysis do not provide strong support for the idea that CT programs increase the risk of overweight and obesity.

The present study was limited to CT programs because these programs represent a major proportion of social protection expenditures worldwide [6]. Other types of social protection, such as school feeding programs, food supplements, and cash-for-work were not included, as the programmatic implications are quite different from CT programs. The present study did not examine the pathway between the increase in household income through CT programs and body mass index or body weight. Factors in the pathway include nutrition education, growth monitoring, household spending, and food expenditures, such as spending on sugar-sweetened beverages [39].

CT programs continue to evolve worldwide, with some accelerated changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic [6]. The CT program in Mexico, most recently known as Prospera and formerly Oportunidades, was considered a model for CT programs worldwide [40]. Prospera was abruptly terminated by the government in 2019 and replaced with an unconditional CT program [41]. The removal of health and education conditions for the CT program in Mexico resulted in a large drop in attendance at health centers and layoffs of frontline healthcare workers [41]. Concerns have been raised that removal of conditions from the CT program in Mexico will adversely affect civic participation among the poor [42]. The role of health conditions of conditional CT programs and the risk of overweight and obesity is not clear and could be addressed in future studies.

Worldwide, CT programs are becoming a preferred form of food assistance, as many countries are shifting from food vouchers and food transfers to CT [43]. CT have a favorable impact upon food consumption and dietary diversity and are more cost-efficient than food-based interventions [44]. Digital payments have improved speed and transparency of CT programs and have achieved deeper financial inclusion [6]. In the age of COVID-19, digital payments have also reduced person-to-person exposure and minimized health risks [6].

Obesity and overweight are important risk factors for chronic diseases such as hypertension [45], diabetes [46], and cardiovascular disease [47]. Thus, CT programs, through their potential impact on overweight and obesity, have the potential to affect long-term health of millions of participants worldwide. CT programs are considered the most important social safety net for social protection programs [4]. Despite the large expenditure on CT programs worldwide (~ US $700 billion in 2020) [6], there are only a limited number of studies that used a randomized controlled design to examine the impact of CT on nutritional outcomes [48].

In conclusion, there were a limited number of studies that described the relationship between CT programs and the risk of overweight and obesity. Overall, CT programs appear to have either no impact or a decreased risk of overweight and/or obesity in children, adolescents, and adults. Due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity of studies, and limited quality of studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence. Further work is needed to characterize the relationship of CT programs with overweight and obesity using more rigorous methodology and inclusion of distal outcomes such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated during this study are included in the published article.

References

  1. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Statistics Division. Data Innovations. Sustainable Development Goal 1. No poverty. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/goal-01/ Accessed 4 Nov 2021

  2. World Bank. Data. Population total. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL Accessed 4 Nov 2021

  3. Mahler DG, Yonzan N, Lakner C, Aguilar RAC, Wu H. Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: turning the corner on the pandemic in 2021? World Bank Data Blog 2021. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty-turning-corner-pandemic-2021 Accessed 4 Nov 2021

  4. Alderman H. Leveraging social protection programs for improved nutrition. Washington DC: World Bank; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. World Bank. The State of Social Safety Nets 2018. Washington: DC, World Bank; 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Gentilini U, Almenfi M, Dale P. Social protection and jobs responses to COVID-19: a real-time review of country measures. “Living paper” version 15 (May 14, 2021). 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Manley J, Balarajan Y, Malm S, Harman L, Owens J, Murthy S, Stewart D, Winder-Rossi NE, Khurshid A. Cash transfers and child nutritional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(12): e003621. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003621.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Popkin BM, Corvalan C, Grummer-Strawn LM. Dynamics of the double burden of malnutrition and the changing nutrition reality. Lancet. 2020;395(10217):65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32497-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO child growth standards: length/height-for-age, weight-for-age, weight-for-length, weight-for-height and body mass index-for-age: methods and development. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight fact sheet. 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight Accessed 6 Oct 2021

  11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Modesti PA, Reboldi G, Cappuccio FP, Agyemang C, Remuzzi G, Rapi S, Perruolo E, Parati G, ESH Working Group on CV Risk in Low Resource Settings. Panethnic differences in blood pressure in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chagas DC, Silva AA, Batista RF, Simões VM, Lamy ZC, Coimbra LC, Britto e Alves MT. Prevalência e fatores associados à desnutrição e ao excesso de peso em menores de cinco anos nos seis maiores municípios do Maranhão [Prevalence and factors associated to malnutrition and excess weight among under five year-olds in the six largest cities of Maranhão]. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2013;16(1):146–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Amistá MJ, Vieira da Silva M. Estado nutricional de crianças e adolescentes de um município do interior paulista e vínculo com programas de transferência de renda. Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, Campinas. 2015;22:721–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. do Carmo AS, de Almeida LM, de Oliveira DR, Dos Santos LC. Influence of the Bolsa Família program on nutritional status and food frequency of schoolchildren. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2016;92(4):381–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2015.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sperandio N, Rodrigues CT, Franceschini SCC, Priore SE. Impact of Bolsa Família Program on the nutritional status of children and adolescents from two Brazilian regions. Rev Nutr Campinas. 2017;30:477–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lopez-Arana S, Avendano M, Forde I, van Lenthe FJ, Burdorf A. Conditional cash transfers and the double burden of malnutrition among children in Colombia: a quasi-experimental study. Br J Nutr. 2016;115(10):1780–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516000714.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Andersen CT, Reynolds SA, Behrman JR, Crookston BT, Dearden KA, Escobal J, Mani S, Sánchez A, Stein AD, Fernald LC. Participation in the Juntos conditional cash transfer program in Peru is associated with changes in child anthropometric status but not language development or school achievement. J Nutr. 2015;145(10):2396–405. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.115.213546.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Unar M, González de Cossío T. Reducing stunting and obesity in young children: a quasi-experimental design evaluation of a conditional transfer program in Dominican Republic. [abstract] FASEB J 2013;27(supplement 1):617.1.

  20. Koyama Y, Fujiwara T, Isumi A, Doi S. Is Japan’s child allowance effective for the well-being of children? a statistical evaluation using data from K-CHILD study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moodley J, Chiba J, Patel L. The influence of the child support grant on education and health capabilities of children. Southern Africa J Soc Work Soc Dev. 2017;29:1–18. https://doi.org/10.25159/2415-5829/2389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Andalón M. Oportunidades to reduce overweight and obesity in Mexico? Health Econ. 2011;20(Suppl 1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Watson B, Guettabi M, Reimer M. Universal cash transfers reduce childhood obesity rates. SSRN, 2019. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3380033 Accessed 2 Aug 2021

  24. Pérez-Lu JE, Cárcamo C, Nandi A, Kaufman JS. Health effects of 'Juntos', a conditional cash transfer programme in Peru. Matern Child Nutr. 2017 Jul;13(3):e12348. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12348.

  25. Téllez-Rojo MM, Manrique-Espinosa B, Moreno-Tamayo K, De la Cruz-Góngora V, Ángeles G, Salinas-Rodríguez A. Heterogeneous impact of the non-contributory pension programme 70 y más on nutritional status of the elderly in rural Mexico. [abstract] Lancet 2013 (special issue); 381:S143.

  26. Gonzalez NJM. Three Essays on Obesity. Food environment, attitudes towards food, and cash transfers. Chapter 3. A cash transfer program for older persons in Yucatan, Mexico: effects on obesity. PhD thesis. Pardee Rand Graduate School, 2016. https://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD374.html Accessed 2 Aug 2021

  27. Levasseur P. Can social programs break the vicious cycle between poverty and obesity? Evidence from urban Mexico World Dev. 2019;113:143–56.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Forde I, Chandola T, Garcia S, Marmot MG, Attanasio O. The impact of cash transfers to poor women in Colombia on BMI and obesity: prospective cohort study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012;36(9):1209–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2011.234.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fernald LC, Hou X, Gertler PJ. Oportunidades program participation and body mass index, blood pressure, and self-reported health in Mexican adults. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(3):A81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Leroy JL, Gadsden P, González de Cossío T, Gertler P. Cash and in-kind transfers lead to excess weight gain in a population of women with a high prevalence of overweight in rural Mexico. J Nutr. 2013;143(3):378–83. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.112.167627.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lebihan L, Mao Takongmo CO. Unconditional cash transfers and parental obesity. Soc Sci Med. 2019;224:116–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Parra DC, Gomez LF, Iannotti L, Haire-Joshu D, SebertKuhlmann AK, Brownson RC. Maternal and familial correlates of anthropometric typologies in the nutrition transition of Colombia, 2000–2010. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(14):2584–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018001337.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. DávilaLárraga LG. How does Prospera work? Best practices in the implementation of conditional cash transfer programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Technical Note IDB-TN-971. Washington: Inter-American Development Bank; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Medellín N, Prada FS. How does Más Familias en Acción work? Best practices in the implementation of conditional cash transfer programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Technical Note IDB-TN-884. Washington: Inter-American Development Bank; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hellmann AG. How does Bolsa Familia work? Best practices in the implementation of conditional cash transfer programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Technical Note IDB-TN-856. Washington: Inter-American Development Bank; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lavigne M, Vargas LH. Social protection systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: Dominican Republic. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). United Nations, 2013. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/35921/LCW557_en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Accessed 8 Nov 2021

  37. Aguila E, López-Ortega M, Gutiérrez Robledo LM. Non-contributory pension programs and frailty of older adults: Evidence from Mexico. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11): e0206792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206792.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Leroy JL, Koch B, Roy S, Gilligan D, Ruel M. Social assistance programs and birth outcomes: a systematic review and assessment of nutrition and health pathways. J Nutr. 2021 Sep 29:nxab292. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxab292

  39. Ferretti F, Mariani M. Sugar-sweetened beverage affordability and the prevalence of overweight and obesity in a cross section of countries. Global Health. 2019;15(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0474-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Parker SW, Todd PE. Conditional cash transfers: the case of Progresa/Oportunidades. J Econ Lit. 2017;15:866–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Campos SA, Peeters R. Policy improvisation: how frontline workers cope with public service gaps in developing countries – the case of Mexico’s Prospera program. Public Admin Dev 2021;1–11.

  42. Schober GS. Conditional cash transfer, resources, and political participation in Latin America. Latin Am Res Rev. 2019;54:591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Alderman H, Gentilini U, Yemtsov R. The 1.5 Billion People Question: Food, Vouchers, or Cash Transfers? Washington: World Bank; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1087-9.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Gentilini U. Revisiting the “cash versus food” debate: new evidence for an old puzzle? World Bank Research Observer. 2016;31:135–67.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shihab HM, Meoni LA, Chu AY, Wang NY, Ford DE, Liang KY, Gallo JJ, Klag MJ. Body mass index and risk of incident hypertension over the life course: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Circulation. 2012;126(25):2983–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.112.117333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Narayan KM, Boyle JP, Thompson TJ, Gregg EW, Williamson DF. Effect of BMI on lifetime risk for diabetes in the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(6):1562–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Khan SS, Ning H, Wilkins JT, Allen N, Carnethon M, Berry JD, Sweis RN, Lloyd-Jones DM. Association of body mass index with lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease and compression of morbidity. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3(4):280–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Popkin BM. Cash transfer programs are important for improved nutrition in low- and middle-income countries. J Nutr. 2021;151(12):3599–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxab330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Sources of support

Santa Barbara Foundation. The funders had no role in the design, implementation, analysis and interpretation of the data.

Funding

The Santa Barbara Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Smith Building M015, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Richard D. Semba, Nihaal Rahman & Martin W. Bloem

  2. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Smith Building M015, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Richard D. Semba

  3. Department of Economics, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

    James Manley

  4. Welch Medical Library, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Lori Rosman

  5. Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Martin W. Bloem

Authors
  1. Richard D. Semba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Manley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lori Rosman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nihaal Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin W. Bloem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RDS, JM, and MB had the original concept for the project. LR conducted the database search and provided overall guidance for the review. RDS and NR provided adjudication and quality assessment of articles. All co-authors contributed to writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard D. Semba.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1.

Databases and Search Terms used for the Systematic Review.

Additional file 2: Supporting Table 2.

Characteristics of specific cash transfer programs.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Semba, R.D., Manley, J., Rosman, L. et al. Relationship of cash transfers with risk of overweight and obesity in children and adults: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 22, 1190 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13533-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13533-x

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us