SynthesisNature human behaviour2026
Social safety nets, women's economic achievements and agency in 45 countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Social safety nets, women's economic achievements and agency in 45 countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nature human behaviour · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are increasing calls for economic assistance in the form of social safety nets (SSNs) to be designed and implemented to promote women's economic inclusion and agency, contributing to closing gender disparities globally. Here we investigate the extent to which SSNs affect women's economic achievements and agency through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials implemented in low- and middle-income countries. We searched six databases utilizing search strings in English, French and Spanish through December 2024. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Our sample includes 1,307 effect sizes from 93 studies, representing 218,828 women across 45 low- and middle-income countries. Using robust variance estimation meta-analysis, we show significant overall pooled effects (Hedges' g = 0.107, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.085-0.129), driven by increases in economic achievements (productive work, savings, assets and expenditures) and agency (voice, autonomy and decision-making). We find significant treatment effects for unconditional cash transfers (Hedges' g = 0.128, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.097 to 0.159), social care services (Hedges' g = 0.122, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.174), asset transfers (Hedges' g = 0.115, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.160) and public work programmes (Hedges' g = 0.127, P = 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.239). We find comparatively smaller effects for conditional cash transfers (Hedges' g = 0.059, P = 0.019, 95% CI 0.011 to 0.108) and found no evidence of effects for in-kind transfers. SSNs can empower women economically and socially; however, limitations and evidence gaps remain, including the need for further rigorous testing of design and operational components, the role of contextual factors and cost-benefit analysis with a gender lens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.