The effect of conditional cash transfers on the control of neglected tropical disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are diseases of poverty and affect 1·5 billion people globally. Conditional cash transfer (CCTs) programmes alleviate poverty in many countries, potentially contributing to improved NTD outcomes. This systematic review examines the relationship between CCTs and screening, incidence, or treatment outcomes of NTDs. METHODS: In this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Lilacs, EconLit, Global Health, and grey literature websites on Sept 17, 2020, with no date or language restrictions. Controlled quantitative studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating CCT interventions in low-income and middle-income countries were included. Any outcome measures related to WHO's 20 diseases classified as NTDs were included. Studies from high-income countries were excluded. Two authors (AA and TH) extracted data from published studies and appraised risk of biases using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias 2 tools. Results were analysed narratively. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020202480. FINDINGS: From the search, 5165 records were identified; of these, 11 studies were eligible for inclusion covering four CCTs in Brazil, the Philippines, Mexico, and Zambia. Most studies were either RCTs or quasi-experimental studies and ten were assessed to be of moderate quality. Seven studies reported improved NTD outcomes associated with CCTs, in particular, reduced incidence of leprosy and increased uptake of deworming treatments. There was some evidence of greater benefit of CCTS in lower socioeconomic groups but subgroup analysis was scarce. Methodological weaknesses include self-reported outcomes, missing data, improper randomisation, and differences between CCT and comparator populations in observational studies. The available evidence is currently limited, covering a small proportion of CCTs and NTDs. INTERPRETATION: CCTs can be associated with improved NTD outcomes, and could be driven by both improvements in living standards from cash benefits and direct health effects from conditionalities related to health-care use. This evidence adds to the knowledge of health-improving effects from CCTs in poor and vulnerable populations. FUNDING: None.

The quality of alternative models of primary health care and morbidity and mortality in Brazil: a national longitudinal analysis.

Background: Evidence is limited on health benefits from quality improvement of primary healthcare (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study investigated whether increasing PHC quality in Brazil with highly-skilled health professionals and integrated community health workers (CHWs) was associated with reductions in hospitalizations and mortality beyond benefits derived from increasing access. Methods: Annual municipal-level data for 5,411 municipalities between 2000 and 2014 were analysed using fixed effects panel regressions. PHC quality was measured as: i) the proportion of consultations provided by highly-skilled health professionals (doctors and nurses); and ii) the proportion of visits provided by CHWs from multidisciplinary PHC teams. Models assessed associations between PHC quality and hospitalization and mortality from diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), tuberculosis, leprosy, perinatal and maternal causes, and adjusted for PHC access, utilisation, presence of secondary care services, and socioeconomic factors. Findings: A one percentage point increase in the proportion of consultations provided by highly-skilled health professionals was associated with 0•019 fewer deaths from diabetes per 100,000 population (95%CI: -0•034, -0•003; p-value: 0.0167) and 0•029 fewer hospitalizations per 100,000 from leprosy (95%CI: -0•055, -0•002; p-value: 0.0321). A one percentage point increase in the proportion of care provided by CHWs from multidisciplinary PHC teams was associated with 0•025 fewer deaths from CVD per 100,000 (95%CI: -0•050, -0•001; p-value: 0.0442) and 0•148 fewer maternal hospital admissions per 100,000 (95%CI: -0•286, -0•010; p-value: 0.0356). No significant associations were found for the other twenty pairs of exposures and outcomes analysed. Interpretation: Investing in higher-quality PHC models with highly-skilled health professionals and integrated CHWs can deliver reductions in mortality and hospitalizations in LMICs. Funding: None.