Experiences of conditional and unconditional cash transfers intended for improving health outcomes and health service use: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background It is well known that poverty is associated with ill health and that ill health can result in direct and indirect costs that can perpetuate poverty. Social protection, which includes policies and programmes intended to prevent and reduce poverty in times of ill health, could be one way to break this vicious cycle. Social protection, particularly cash transfers, also has the potential to promote healthier behaviours, including healthcare seeking. Although social protection, particularly conditional and unconditional cash transfers, has been widely studied, it is not well known how recipients experience social protection interventions, and what unintended effects such interventions can cause. Objectives The aim of this review was to explore how conditional and unconditional cash transfer social protection interventions with a health outcome are experienced and perceived by their recipients. Search methods We searched Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Social Services s, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, AnthroSource and EconLit from the start of the database to 5 June 2020. We combined this with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature and contact with authors to identify additional studies. We reran all strategies in July 2022, and the new studies are awaiting classification. Selection criteria We included primary studies, using qualitative methods or mixed‐methods studies with qualitative research reporting on recipients’ experiences of cash transfer interventions where health outcomes were evaluated. Recipients could be adult patients of healthcare services, the general adult population as recipients of cash targeted at themselves or directed at children. Studies could be evaluated on any mental or physical health condition or cash transfer mechanism. Studies could come from any country and be in any language. Two authors independently selected studies. Data collection and analysis We used a multistep purposive sampling framework for selecting studies, starting with geographical representation, followed by health condition, and richness of data. Key data were extracted by the authors into Excel. Methodological limitations were assessed independently using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria by two authors. Data were synthesised using meta‐ethnography, and confidence in findings was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE‐CERQual) approach. Main results We include