Abstract
In high income countries one in five children still lives in poverty. This is known to adversely shape the life course health trajectory of these children; however, much less is understood on whether social and fiscal policies have the capacity to reverse this damage, which intervention is likely to be most effective and when these interventions should be delivered to maximise their impact. This systematic review attempts to address these questions by looking at the impact of income-support interventions delivered during the first 1,000 days of life on cardiovascular, metabolic, respiratory and mental health outcomes. The review was restricted to experimental or quasi experimental studies conducted in high income countries. Studies of interest were retrieved from multidisciplinary database as well as health, economic, social sciences-specific literature browsers. Evidence of interest were summarised via narrative synthesis approach. Robustness of findings was assessed by tabulating impact by health outcome, type of intervention and study design. Overall, 18 relevant papers were identified, including 16 independent studies, one meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) and one pooled analysis of RCTs. Income-support interventions included: unconditional/conditional cash transfers, income tax credit, welfare to work, and minimum wage salary policies. Most studies were conducted in North America. Overall, the evidence suggested a positive, albeit small, effect of most policies on birth weight outcomes, but limited effect on mental health indicators. Results seemed to be robust to the type of intervention, but not to the study design, with RCTs consistently less likely to detect an impact. Given the large number of people targeted by these programs, one could infer that – despite small – the observed effect may be still relevant at population level. Nonetheless, the limited generalisability of the evidence gathered hampers firm conclusions. For the future, the breath and scope of this literature need to be broadened to fully exploit the potential of these interventions and understand how their public health impact can be maximised.
Introduction
Background
Despite the overall global improvement of most development indices, one in five children in high income countries still lives in poverty, with striking variation across countries in terms of prevalence.(1) In one recent analysis from UNICEF involving 41 high income countries Denmark showed the best record on relative poverty, but even in such affluent country 9.2 per cent of children are considered poor (defined as living in a household with income below 60% of the median household after housing costs). Israel and Romania showed the worst records on relative poverty, with more than one child in three falling below the poverty line. Bulgaria, Mexico, Spain, Turkey and the United States also have child poverty rates substantially greater than the rich-world average.(1) Recently, some high income countries are witnessing a rise in childhood poverty: in the United Kingdom, for example, child poverty rose by two percentage points between 2014 and 2017, and it is projected to increase further through to 2022.(2) These forecasts are likely to having been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.(3) A mounting body of evidence suggests unequivocally that exposure to adverse socioeconomic circumstances during foetal life and early childhood affects clinical, behavioural and cognitive outcomes and - most importantly - can shape later life health trajectories.(4) These socioeconomic inequalities are preventable and unfair, particularly in the case of children who have little control over their health and the factors that influence it.(5)
Overall, strategies to prevent, reduce and mitigate child poverty and its consequences generally involve three key components—support of early childhood education and care, income redistribution through cash and or in-kind benefits and tax systems, and policies to increase the employment chances and wages of families living in poverty.(6, 7) These measures are considered to play a crucial role in reducing child inequalities mainly by increasing children’s human capital, reducing their vulnerability to the financial and physical consequences of ill-health and overall by interrupting the intergenerational transmission of poverty.
While there is evidence that all three components are likely to be effective at reducing child poverty globally,(6) at least in high income countries, few experimental and quasi-experimental studies have sought to determine whether the poverty effect of these macro-level interventions translate into a positive child-health effect,(8) Even less is known about whether some approaches are more likely to lead to greater health benefits than others, and whom and when is likely to most benefit from these interventions.
Important knowledge gaps remain also in terms of: a) how socioeconomic disadvantage experienced during early childhood biologically affects individuals’ life course health trajectories; and b) the extent to which the biological damages are exerted by socioeconomic disadvantage and how these biological damages can be effectively prevented and/or repaired through interventions able to address income inequalities during the first 1,000 days of life (from pregnancy to age 2).
This review aims to contribute to these knowledge gaps by providing an evidence synthesis of the child health impact of macro-level socioeconomic interventions, and in particular of income support policies, delivered in the 1,000 days of life. This effort is part of the LifeCycle project, an EU Horizon 2020-funded (2017-2022) project, whose scope is to leverage knowledge from a network of EU child cohorts in order to: 1) identify markers of early-life stressors affecting health throughout the lifecourse, including socioeconomic, lifestyle, migration and urban environment ones, and 2) translate the findings into policy recommendations for targeted prevention strategies.(9)
The conceptual framework
Early life socioeconomic stressors can affect life course cardiometabolic, respiratory and mental health outcomes through epigenetic mechanisms, fetal and childhood development and adaptation, and finally by influencing the differential burden of life course risk factors and health outcomes during early life. In order to identify entry points for interventions, this framework needs to be further unpacked to elucidate the pathways through which socioeconomic disadvantage arises, operates and is perpetuated (Figure 1).
Following from Diderichsen and colleagues conceptual model,(5) we can assume that the primer drivers of socioeconomic stressors in childhood are positioned at distal level and refer to those structures and constructs that influence the socioeconomic position of individuals in a society (Fig 1, Pathway I). Socioeconomic differences can influence the differential exposure to important material, psychosocial and behavioral risk factors (Fig 1, Pathway II) or can affect the differential susceptibility of children to these risks (Fig 1, Pathway III, e.g. the impact of any given risk factor may be more pronounced in less advantaged groups due to their greater likelihood of being exposed to other important and interacting risk factors). Finally, socioeconomic stressors may influence the differential vulnerability of children to the clinical and financial consequences of health conditions during childhood (Fig 1, Pathway IV), which ultimately can further exacerbate the disadvantage in early life and adulthood (Fig 1, Pathway V).
Depending on the pathway we can identify different entry points for interventions as outlined in Table 1. For the purpose of this review, and consistent with the objectives of LifeCycle, we decided to concentrate on distal-level interventions that directly affect social stratification, and are aimed at reducing inequalities through educational, labor market, welfare and poverty alleviation strategies (Pathway I, Intervention A). Within this broad group of interventions, we focussed on income support interventions that are defined as all measures taken by authorities aimed at providing an adequate income to their citizens via different benefit schemes, which are implemented within different policies with different aims and objectives.(10) Their implementation may embrace different criteria of selectivity and generosity across each intervention and setting. Overall, income support programs are hypothesized to improve child and adolescent outcomes via the family investment model, according to which families have more money to spend on inputs(11, 12) or more time to spend with children,(13) and the family stress model, according to which maternal depression and stress are lower because household resources are higher.(14)
Why this review is important
Recently, at least three systematic reviews have attempted to explore the child health impact of poverty alleviation strategies.(15-17)
They differ from our own work in terms of scope and key inclusion criteria. The systematic review and meta-analysis from Courtin et al(15) included a wide range of social policies/poverty alleviation strategies including housing, education and health insurance-related interventions, examined only RCTs, and looked at the impact on health in the general population rather than just on child’s health only.
Another recent review, from Cooper et al,(16) examined the effect of household income itself rather than socioeconomic interventions able to modify income and included as exposure of interest also lotteries and income shocks. They did not restrict their inclusion criteria to RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, but also included findings from observational studies and extended their focus beyond strict health outcomes, including school achievement.
Finally, Simpson et al(17) focused on the impact of social security benefits - more precisely the effect of changes in the eligibility and the amount and type of benefits provided -on a number of mental health indicators both in adults and children. Only observational studies were included in this review.
Our review adds to this body of knowledge by setting more stringent inclusion criteria and restricting its boundaries of investigation. Specifically, this review aimed to generate evidence on the impact of interventions able to modify the effect of early-life socioeconomic stressors during the first 1,000 days of life; and in order to more specifically link and interpret our findings according to potential underlying mechanisms, we focused on those interventions that affected income inequalities. While the results of previous studies suggested some effects of socioeconomic policies on overall physical and mental health outcomes, we aimed to assess whether these interventions can affect children specific cardiovascular, metabolic, respiratory and mental health outcomes, relying only on results coming from either experimental or quasi experimental studies.
Material and Methods
The methods used in this review largely followed the recommendations of Waddington et al on the review of international development interventions.(18) With the exception of the search strategy definition and roll out, all steps were undertaken in parallel from at least two authors of this report.
Search strategy and databases
Electronic searches have covered key bibliographic databases including:
⍰ Multidisciplinary ones, such as SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar;
⍰ Specific to social sciences, both general and discipline-specific, such as Social Science Research Network (SSRN), and Econlit for economics, PsycInfo for behavioural studies;
⍰ Specific to biomedical research, including Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE;
⍰ The Cochrane Library Central for both trials and reviews registry.
Consistent with existing recommendations,(18) we adopted a ‘snowballing’ approach: starting from important primary studies and already existing reviews we further increased the body of references both by bibliographic back-referencing and citation tracking (i.e. reviewing references in which the included study has been cited).
In terms of search strategy, we focused on two groups of key terms to begin with:
GROUP 1- Social welfare OR Social protection OR Cash/food/in-kind transfers OR child grants OR child benefits OR child allowances OR Tax benefits OR Child tax credit or Work-based programmes;
GROUP 2 – child health.
Each term in GROUP 1 was cross-tabulated with all terms in GROUP 2. Given the broad scope of the review, we adopted an iterative process and refined the search strategy as we progressed. Key papers were also searched for in databases to identify subject headings or descriptors applied to them, which were then used to further refine the search strategy. The approaches above returned a final search strategy which is explained in Supplementary Material Table S1. For all searches, high-income countries and RCT, experimental and quasi-experimental studies, filters were used.
Eligibility criteria
Overall, only studies (both published and unpublished) from high-income countries, as defined by the World Bank, providing impact evidence of income-support interventions on the outcomes of interest were included in the review.
Macro-level interventions of interest included all strategies aimed to increase income i.e. income support intervention, among which:
⍰ Social protection strategies (based on social assistance and safety nets, such as: conditional or unconditional cash transfers; price subsidies for electricity, public transport or food such as food stamps, vouchers, and coupons);
⍰ Taxation policies and benefits (i.e. fee waivers and exemptions for schooling, tax credits, and utilities);
⍰ Interventions aimed to enhance and promote lone parent employment, namely Welfare to Work (WtW) interventions, if they included cash benefits that could directly affect outcome;
⍰ Minimum wage salary policies.
Interventions addressing differential exposure to risk factors (i.e. housing) and differential vulnerability to risk factors in disadvantaged groups (i.e. support for disabled people in the household) were not included. We did not include school feeding programs as they were considered as a separate type of intervention, also typically delivered after the age window of interest. We also did not include interventions that directly affected health outcomes (e.g. Medicaid or medical insurance-related interventions) because they could affect directly child health, beyond our conceptual framework pathways.
We considered interventions delivered during children’s first 1000 days of life only: this is a key period for determining lifetime health trajectories, since influences in early-life can cause long-term functional and structural changes.(19)
Outcomes of interest included childhood life-course risk factors and health outcomes concerning:
⍰ Cardiovascular health (e.g. specific diseases or parameters as blood pressure measurements);
⍰ Metabolic conditions (e.g. birth weight, obesity, diabetes mellitus);
⍰ Respiratory diseases: (e.g. Wheezing, Asthma, COPD);
⍰ Mental health: specific diagnoses (e.g. ADHD, ASD, Internalizing/Externalizing behaviour problems) or self-assessment/reporting of mental health status.
Studies including impact on generic, self-reported measures of the overall health status were not included.
Finally, we applied restrictions on study design including only studies that reported impact evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Quasi-Experimental design studies. No time or language restriction was applied to papers.
Studies selection
Two authors independently performed the selection process for each paper identified through database search or snowballing procedures, following the PRISMA flowchart, in order to assess eligibility; the whole procedure is described in Figure 2. Disagreements in the inclusion of the paper were resolved by consensus, consulting the other members of the team if appropriate.
* Some studies were excluded because they did not meet more of the inclusion criteria, therefore they contribute to more of the below categories
Data extraction appraisal and synthesis
Data extraction forms were created to gather relevant information from the selected papers. Given the anticipated heterogeneity of studies, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. We summarised instead the principal findings of each study and combined them together via a narrative synthesis.
Risk of bias assessment
Despite the existence of several tools for the critical appraisal of the quality of studies, we chose to use the approach suggested by Waddington et al based on the simple identification of a number of selected biases (whether explicitly stated in the papers or identified by the authors of this report) (18). Due to the complexity and heterogeneity of the studies and their statistical techniques, in particular for quasi-experimental ones, in fact, we did not apply any bias score-based approach to determine the overall risk of bias of the eligible papers,(18) but the identified biases were listed, described, and summarised in a descriptive table (Table 6).
Review protocol registration
The review protocol has been successfully registered within PROSPERO in June 2020 with the registration number CRD42020178543.(20)
Results
The search strategy returned a total of 11,658 papers. After removing duplicates and titles of no relevance, we obtained 358 papers to submit for abstract screening of which 95 were considered suitable for the eligibility assessment. Furthermore, the snowballing approach returned us 71 papers, of which 25 were considered of potential interest. Thus, in total 120 papers underwent eligibility assessment of which 18 met the review requirements. 102 were excluded because they did not meet one or more inclusion criteria as follows: 67 papers did not satisfy the study design; 50 the intervention; 75 did not include the health outcome of interests; 35 were not suitable due to the study population and 9 did not refer to high income countries (Figure 2). Among the 18 eligible papers, 16 referred to independent studies whereas two were a meta-analysis(21) and a pooled analysis(22) of respectively 12 and 5 RCTs concerning Welfare-to-Work interventions.
Studies description
Table 2 provides an overview of the main features of the studies included in this review. Their publication year ranged from 2001 to 2019 and the considered interventions were delivered between 1957 and 2013.
With the exception of Leyland et al(23) and Gibson et al,(21) that provided evidence from the United Kingdom, all the other studies were conducted in North America: largely from the United States and in four cases from Canada.(22, 24-28)
The interventions largely focused on a United States poverty alleviation strategy, the Earned Income Tax Credit (seven papers)(27-33) followed by unconditional cash transfer interventions (five papers),(23, 24, 26, 34) conditional cash transfers (three papers),(25, 35, 36) Welfare to Work interventions,(21, 22) and minimum wage salary (two papers).(37, 38)
The meta-analysis and the pooled analysis mentioned before(21, 22) were both summarizing evidence on Welfare-to-Work interventions, defined as all ranges of interventions involving financial incentives and sanctions, training, childcare subsidies and lifetime limits on benefit receipt that are used to support or mandate employment among parents.(21)
Table 3 provides a detailed description of the interventions included in this review both in terms of benefits provided and recipients (i.e. the ideally target population).
In terms of child health outcomes (Table 2), the vast majority of studies focused on birth weight as both its measurement in grams and low birth weight percentage. In two studies,(24, 32) also weight-for-gestational age was examined. In five cases, authors focused on child mental health, quantified either as a measure of mental health on a 1 to 5 scale reported from parents, or through specific instruments, namely the Behavior Problem Index (BPI),(21, 22, 31) the Positive Behaviour Scale, (PBS)(22) some country-specific modified version of them (25) and the anxiety and physical and indirect aggression scale.(26)
Studies have largely relied on quasi-experimental study designs, whereas RCTs have been considered only in the meta and pooled-analyses(21, 22) and in one conditional cash transfer from Canada (Table 3).(25) Quasi-experimental designs adopted a wide range of impact evaluation techniques of different rigour and complexity: before and after analysis,(32) difference in difference,(26-29, 33, 34, 37, 38) instrumental variable analysis,(30, 31) interrupted time series analysis,(23) propensity score matching,(24) and Fixed Effect Model.(35)
Effect findings
We reported impact findings both qualitatively (Table 4 and Table 5) and quantitatively (Table S2): if the considered paper provided one main model we referred to it, while if the study adopted multiple models or subgroups, all findings’ directions were reported in the tables.
Findings have been labelled as positive, when demonstrating a positive effect in the expected direction (i.e. health outcome improvement), regardless of issues of statistical significance, negative when showing an impact in opposite direction expected (i.e. health outcome worsening) or null, when no effect or any clear direction was observed.
As shown in Table 4 and 5, for almost all the considered interventions results seem to lean toward an overall positive effect on the considered outcome, with some exceptions. Null results were observed in six studies. In two cases(22, 24) authors documented a negative impact of the intervention: in Hill et al,(22) the positive behaviour among children in age group 12-23 months was negatively affected by mothers’ assignment to the treatment group, while in Brownell et al an increased risk of Large for
Gestational Age (LGA) was found for children whose families received an unconditional cash transfer during pregnancy in Canada.(24) In both instances negative results were paralleled with positive or null findings in other subgroup analyses.(22, 24)
Findings by intervention type
Table 4 provides a distribution of the impact findings by type of intervention.
Welfare to Work interventions, overall, had no effect on the given outcome (i.e. mental health). The same applies to the RCT on the Self Sufficiency Project (SSP),(25) a conditional cash transfer aimed to increase employment, which provided a financial supplement to parents who left welfare and worked at least 30 hours per week.
The Earned Income Tax credit, conducted in the United States,(27, 28, 30-33, 39) by contrast seems to produce almost consistently a positive impact on child birth weight, in six of the seven quasi-experimental studies that examined it, except for Hamad 2015 irrespective of the statistical method adopted.(30, 31)
Finally, the remaining unconditional and conditional cash transfer interventions examined showed overall a positive impact on child health, both on reduction of absolute birth or low birth weight prevalence and on children’s mental health scores.
Findings by study design and health outcomes
Results did not appear to be robust to the study design adopted (Table 5), with all RCTs consistently reporting null or negative effect.(21, 22, 25) Contrarily, all quasi-experimental studies, except for Milligan et al(26) and Hamad et al,(30) found at least one positive effect.
Despite the differences in the number of studies tackling birth weight and mental health (i.e. respectively 13 vs 5), evidence seems to suggest a more consistent response from studies looking at birth weight compared to those looking at mental health (Table 5).
Specifically, studies looking at mental health showed a more mixed picture, with positive and null effects almost equally represented among studies: the two RCTs, concerning Welfare to Work intervention and the one on the SSP program, designed to promote work among low income families did not find any effect on mental health. Conversely the other two quasi-experimental studies concerning respectively the EITC and the Canadian Child Tax Benefit, found a positive effect of the interventions on children’s mental health. Evidence on birth weight offered better consistency with findings being more aligned and showing overall a clearer positive trend.
Magnitude of positive effects
Different study designs and result presentations adopted do not allow us to standardise the magnitude of the observed impact, but all the quantitative findings are reported in Supplementary Material Table S2.
Given the high heterogeneity of studies involved and the modest impact size, a comparison of the magnitude of impact across different interventions is of limited meaning and the population health implications remain uncertain. Nonetheless, in two cases,(27, 37) authors attempted to extrapolate the observed effect into actual negative public health outcomes averted. According to authors,(27) the 12% reduction in low birth weight found for EITC translates into 3760 fewer low birth weight babies born from black mothers and 8364 fewer low birth weight babies born from white mothers per year across the United States. Hispanic and non-Hispanic mothers displayed relatively similar effects. For minimum wage salaries instead, if all United States in 2014 had increased their minimum wages by 1 dollar there would likely have been an estimated 2790 fewer low birth weight births for the year.(27)
Conceptual frameworks
The majority of papers included in this review, except for(24, 33, 37), explicitly mentioned a theory of change or logic model either informing their study hypotheses or guiding the results interpretation. Multiple pathways were speculated through which those interventions, aimed at income support, could affect perinatal health if delivered during pregnancy.
Health-related behaviours were predominantly mentioned, mainly smoking, alcohol, and consumption unhealthy foods that are unevenly distributed across different socioeconomic positions. Those behaviours can directly affect infant health, acting in particular on intra-uterine growth that eventually is a key determinant of birth weight.(35)
In addition, women with lower household income suffer from higher rates of malnutrition, demonstrate heightened psychological stress associated with neuroendocrine dysfunction, which can ultimately influence the likelihood and duration of breastfeeding and hamper access to adequate prenatal care services.(30) Maternal healthcare utilisation behaviours (prenatal care), in particular, was analysed in three studies(32, 34, 36) suggesting some evidence for a mediating role.
Some studies also mentioned the “family process” conceptual model,(25, 27, 28, 30-32) which postulates that the extra income provided by child benefits may improve long-run outcomes, not only through direct investments but by improving also the emotional environment in which the children grow.(22) Specifically, maternal depression and parental warmth were both identified as potential mediators of welfare programs’ impact in most studies.(21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 38) In all these studies, income and employment were hypothesised to affect parental mental health which in turn affected child physical and mental health.
Quality assessment of the studies
In all the assessed studies, at least one bias type was detected. According to Waddington et al, we reported on Table 6 the identified biases if declared in the paper or detected by one of the authors of this review. The overall study quality was moderate-high, and they often dealt with complex analyses and multiple statistical tools. However, due to the complexity of evaluating such interventions, the majority of the studies were at risk of exposure misclassification, either differential or non-differential. Furthermore, most of the studies were affected by incomplete reporting because of their lack in sharing either some results or, in most cases, relevant information for their interpretation, such as how they dealt with missing data.
Discussion
This review aimed to quantify the impact of income-support strategies on life-course risk factors and health outcomes. This review adds to the existing literature by providing insights on the impact of specific types of macro-economic interventions on a specific window period (i.e. first 1,000 days of life) and a selected list of specific life-course risk factors and health outcomes. Consistent with similar evidence synthesis efforts,(21, 40) in this review we could not conclusively demonstrate an effect of income-support-strategies on all the selected child outcomes. Overall, evidence available suggest that income support strategies have a positive, albeit small, effect on birth weight and limited impact on mental health indicators. No other health outcome of interest was investigated in the studies included in this review, so no inference can be made on cardiometabolic and respiratory health outcomes.
One could argue that despite the small observed effect, the proportion of people exposed to these policies is quite large which could result overall into a considerable effect in public health terms. Nonetheless, only two studies in this review have tried to extrapolate this effect to the population level. (27, 32)
The general conclusion of this review seems to be robust to the type of intervention and child outcome under observation, but not to the study design, with quasi-experimental studies consistently more likely to detect a positive impact than randomised controlled trials.
There are possible, not mutually exclusive, explanations for the results of our review, including the fact that despite the extensive screening of different, multidisciplinary literature browsers, the search strategy returned a relatively small number of eligible studies. This is consistent with the conclusion of similar previous reviews(21, 40)claiming that evidence are inconclusive also because very few experimental or quasi-experimental studies have been undertaken to explore the impact of complex, macro-level socioeconomic interventions on child health and - even less - on specific, well measured child health outcomes. We restricted the review to well-defined life-course risk factors and health outcomes, thus excluding studies assessing the effects on generally self-reported health or well-being, namely those subjective outcomes that are strongly affected by both non-differential and differential misclassification. This selection has however further limited the literature to draw upon. The limited effect on mental health outcomes could be also due to the poor standardisation in the definition and measurement of these outcomes.
If we exclude studies that have used a randomised control study designs,(21, 22, 25) results appear less mixed and more convincingly leaning towards an overall positive effect: as argued by other authors,(41, 42) thus, quasi-experimental studies seem to be more suitable to the evaluation of complex interventions with weak effects in a large group of the population. Given the limited number of RCTs included in our review, this remains speculative, but there is clearly the need to understand how methodological aspects influence our understanding of the health impact of these policies.
It is worth noting that with few exceptions,(23, 36) most of the interventions included in the review were not originally designed and implemented to evaluate nor achieve a health effect. This implies that some of the potential impact of these programs could have been missed purely for design/implementation reasons. On the other hand, for those interventions that had a quantifiable effect (e.g. the Earned Income Tax credit studies), one could argue how bigger this effect could have been if these programs were designed with the precise intent of improving people health other than just socioeconomic measures.
The relative modest effect observed in the studies included in this review could be attributed to the size of the benefits provided: this may explain for example why the impact of the Earned Income Tax credit (where the size of cash received can be relatively high (31, 32)) seems almost consistently positive. By contrast, the two studies on conditional cash transfers included in this review, involving a fairly small overall cash transfer provided to beneficiary women of 190GBP or 100 USD, found no evidence of an effect.(23, 36) These observations are consistent with what reported in other reviews similar to this one. For example, Lucas at al(40) concluded that the monetary value of many interventions was low, as in most studies included in their review the total increase in income to intervention families was less than US$50 per month despite the fact that many parents were compelled to work full-time.(22) Authors questioned whether the level of income increase was sufficient to affect living conditions and – we would add – it was big enough to ensure this effect translated into a health effect.(40) Similarly the impact of Welfare-to-work interventions on health were unlikely to have a tangible impact and this largely because of the small effect on the economic outcomes (i.e. income).(21) Authors observed that even where employment and income were increased by the intervention for lone parents enrolled in these programs, poverty was still high for most of them in many of the studies. Perhaps because of this, depression also remained very high for lone parents whether they were enrolled in these programs or not.(21)
Most of the interventions included in this review focus on indicators of socioeconomic position or - broadly speaking – econometric concepts of disadvantage. While the association between these constructs and child health is widely acknowledged, this relationship is likely to be complex and mediated by a number of underlying known and unknown pathways. Importantly, if the effect on income does not translate into a tangible effect on these mediators then the expected impact on child health may not materialise as expected. As in Gibson et al,(21) the role of parental depression and in particular maternal mental health has been speculated to be an important mediator. Other studies(26, 32) suggest a ‘family process’ mediation pathway according to which the extra income provided by the child benefits may improve in the long-run outcomes not only through direct financial investment, but also by improving the emotional environment in which children grow up. Another important mediator is whether the increase of income happens via the mother’s employment:(22, 32) some authors speculated that some policies that incentivise maternal employment may involuntarily increase maternal stress and add extra pressure on mothers which offsets the benefit of a better income on children. Similarly, Morris et al(25) argue that a proper evaluation of the impact of better income and parental employment on child health should account for the moderating role of the developmental period of the child. According to these authors,(25) the effect of income and employment on children aged 1 or less may be counterbalanced, if not reverted, via prolonged periods of time of maternal absence that ultimately leads to increased instability of care and reduced parental warmth.(25)
Our review presents with a number of limitations. Despite our comprehensive search of the literature, the evidence we gathered provides at most a partial representation of existing macroeconomic policies. This is mostly due to the limited number of health outcomes under investigation and to the heavy predominance of studies from North America, largely focussing on Earned Income Tax Credit in the United States. This unbalance is probably largely due to the fact that Earned Income Tax Credit is the most important poverty-alleviation strategy in the United States and it is particularly suitable to quasi-experimental impact evaluations because of variation in the distribution of benefits and changes in welfare policy. While our findings are still relevant, their external validity to countries beyond the United States, to different types of interventions, and other health outcomes remain limited.
Not only we found evidence just on birth weight and mental health outcomes, but birth weight outcomes were consistently evaluated though quasi-experimental design studies, whereas half of the studies concerning mental health were RCTs. Thus, we cannot conclude whether the differential impact observed for birth weight and mental health outcomes reflect some genuine intervention-outcome relation or are simply affected by the study design.
In several studies, authors documented a differential impact by race and education level. Sometimes the evaluation of impact by race gave conflicting results.(27, 32, 43) Clearly there is the need to understand better this complex interaction effect.
Implications for future research
This review provides a useful contribution to the literature on the health effects of social policies. Through the extensive review of the evidence, this research allowed to speculate about possible mechanisms through which these policies may play an effect and why they seem to fail in other circumstances. Finally, through the identification of persisting knowledge gaps, it allowed to draw a research agenda for the future:
First, there is clearly a scope to invest more in the evaluation of the child health impact of macro-level socioeconomic interventions by financing more impact evaluations and by advocating for a better design and implementation of these policies to allow their proper health impact assessment.
Second, the association between income and child health is amply demonstrated. If interventions aiming at improving income do not obtain a commensurate effect on child health outcomes, there is clearly something not working either in the type of intervention provided or in the way we measure this effect. RCTs are considered to be often unfeasible and unethical and unable to capture the complexity of social ‘experiments’.(42). On the other hand, quasi-experimental studies are often imperfect tools that only allow for comparisons between sub-optimal groups.(44) Given the above, there is a mandate to investigate the role of alternative methodologies including observational studies as well as mathematical modelling (i.e. microsimulations) in filling the numerous knowledge gaps still surrounding the impact of socioeconomic interventions on child health.
Thirdly, the question of ‘what works?’ should be more correctly replaced by ‘what works for whom and why?’. There is an urgent need to unpack the effect of these interventions to understand better the reasons for their failure and success. This could be achieved through the design of impact evaluations adopting mixed-methods approach and/or requiring the collection of data to perform rigorous moderation and mediation analyses to explore whether some sub-groups may most benefit from the intervention and through what underlying pathway. Alternatively, and perhaps more conveniently, one could complement reviews like this one, with a “realist” approach, that is a type of literature review in which evidence are mapped against a pre-defined conceptual framework to validate or reject the existence of the speculated underlying pathways linking the interventions with the outcomes of interest.(45) This lens could be applied to the subject of this review and provide important additional explanations on the likely impact of these interventions on child health.
Finally, there is scope to expand this literature review by adding evidence on the long-term impact of these interventions. To the best our knowledge, only few studies have explored the long-term health impact of income support strategies. Studies available(46-48) show consistently a long-term positive impact of the interventions of interest on all health and financial outcomes investigated. Nonetheless, due to the paucity of data, conclusions have to be drawn cautiously. It is also worth exploring the extent to which the way vaster literature from low and middle income can contribute to the understanding of the potential public health impact of income support strategies in high income countries. In other words, there may be merits in creating more connections between low/middle income and high income countries on socioeconomic interventions and explore how lessons can be extrapolated to both environments.(49)
Conclusions
On the basis of this review we have not been able to establish conclusively whether income support policies delivered in the first 1,000 days of life are able to improve important life-course risk factors and child health outcomes. If we concentrate on birth weight and quasi-experimental studies only, evidence suggest a modest positive effect of these policies. However, the breath and scope of the literature needs to be enriched with additional diversified evidence (in terms of health outcome, country and intervention of interest, and other relevant contextual factors) before a definitive conclusion can be reached and the public health potential of these policies is fully understood. The association between lower income and poorer outcome across all dimensions of child health is strong and consistent across countries and time: the fact that a relatively small number of interventions show a small or null effect should be considered as a “research call” to undertake more and better impact evaluations of these policies, able not only to quantify their effect, but also to provide evidence on what works best, for whom, at what development stage and - most importantly – why.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
Author contribution
DB, LR and CP conceptualised the review objectives and design. DB formulated the search strategy and together with SM performed the papers selection and data extraction and curation. DB and SM completed the first draft and the editing. MR and SL provided supervision and validation of the main results and conclusions of the review. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the review findings and formulation of research and policy recommendations.
Declaration of interest
The authors declare that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Founding source
LIFECYCLE: The LIFE-CYCLE project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 733206. This publication reflects only the author’s views and the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
References
