↓ Skip to main content

Effects of unconditional cash transfers on the outcome of treatment for severe acute malnutrition (SAM): a cluster-randomised trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
297 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of unconditional cash transfers on the outcome of treatment for severe acute malnutrition (SAM): a cluster-randomised trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0848-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel Grellety, Pélagie Babakazo, Amina Bangana, Gustave Mwamba, Ines Lezama, Noël Marie Zagre, Eric-Alain Ategbo

Abstract

Cash transfer programs (CTPs) aim to strengthen financial security for vulnerable households. This potentially enables improvements in diet, hygiene, health service access and investment in food production or income generation. The effect of CTPs on the outcome of children already severely malnourished is not well delineated. The objective of this study was to test whether CTPs will improve the outcome of children treated for severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo over 6 months. We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial in children with uncomplicated SAM who received treatment according to the national protocol and counselling with or without a cash supplement of US$40 monthly for 6 months. Analyses were by intention to treat. The hazard ratio of reaching full recovery from SAM was 35% higher in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10 to 1.69, P = 0.007). The adjusted hazard ratios in the intervention group for relapse to moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) and SAM were 0.21 (95% CI = 0.11 to 0.41, P = 0.001) and 0.30 (95% CI = 0.16 to 0.58, P = 0.001) respectively. Non-response and defaulting were lower when the households received cash. All the nutritional outcomes in the intervention group were significantly better than those in the control group. After 6 months, 80% of cash-intervened children had re-gained their mid-upper arm circumference measurements and weight-for-height/length Z-scores and showed evidence of catch-up. Less than 40% of the control group had a fully successful outcome, with many deteriorating after discharge. There was a significant increase in diet diversity and food consumption scores for both groups from baseline; the increase was significantly greater in the intervention group than the control group. CTPs can increase recovery from SAM and decrease default, non-response and relapse rates during and following treatment. Household developmental support is critical in food insecure areas to maximise the efficiency of SAM treatment programs. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02460848 . Registered on 27 May 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 296 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 22%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 5%
Other 12 4%
Other 36 12%
Unknown 120 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 14%
Social Sciences 29 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 3%
Other 25 8%
Unknown 126 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,172,247
of 23,671,454 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,433
of 3,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,852
of 310,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#27
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,671,454 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.