Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40487007›Full record

ArticleChildren and youth services review2025

More Money, More Questions: How Caregivers Spent the Expanded Child Tax Credit.

C Ross Hatton, Adam S Levine, Keshia M Pollack Porter, Erin R Hager

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Children and youth services review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

C Ross HattonDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205.
Adam S LevineDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205.
Keshia M Pollack PorterDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205.
Erin R HagerDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205.

Funding

QAQC Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR003098 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2019 to 2023
$57.7M
Research BaseP30DK072488 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI MITCHELL, BRAXTON D, TAYLOR, SIMEON I. · 2005 to 2019
$17.3M
COVID-19 Policies: Impact Over Time on Child Health, Obesity, and DisparitiesR01HD105356 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI HAGER, ERIN R · 2021 to 2024
$2.7M
Building Blocks for Healthy Preschoolers: Child Care and Family ModelsR01DK107761 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI BLACK, MAUREEN M · 2016 to 2019
$2.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003098NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD105356NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK072488NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK107761
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2021, the federal government passed a one-year expanded child tax credit (ECTC), which increased the credit's amount, made it fully refundable, and issued half of the credit as monthly payments to households with children. This policy, with its wide income-eligibility, can be used to better understand how families use cash benefits, as well as how those uses and related decision-making processes vary by financial context. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study uses survey and interview data to examine how caregivers of varying income levels living in Maryland used the funds and the factors shaping those decisions. We surveyed 306 caregivers between November 2022 and February 2023 about their receipt and use of the child tax credit. We then used stratified purposeful sampling to recruit 22 caregivers from three income groups (<185%, 185%-300%, and 300%+ of the federal poverty line) for interviews between March and June 2023. We used descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and thematic content analysis to identify how caregivers used the funds, explore variation by income, and described factors shaping ECTC use. Caregivers often reported using the funds for necessities like food and utilities; however, many caregivers-particularly those with higher incomes-also used the funds for debt payments and savings and investments. Financial context (e.g., job and income loss) played a paramount role in both constraining and explaining how caregivers used the funds; however, other factors like family structure, benefit timing, payment structure, and the ECTC's framing as a child benefit were also described as factors that shaped caregivers' decisions. The household and policy level factors identified in this study reveal important insights into how the structure and implementation of policies like the ECTC might shape how they are used, as well as how the ECTC's wide income-eligibility might have impacted health equity across financial contexts.

Indexed as

Child tax credithealth equityhousehold finances

Identifiers

PMID40487007
PMCPMC12140566

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.