A Multifaceted Intervention with Savings Incentives to Reduce Multidimensional Child Poverty: Evidence from the Bridges Study (2012–2018) in Rural Uganda

Impact of Family-Based Economic Empowerment Intervention, Suubi+Adherence (2012–2018) on Multidimensional Poverty for Adolescents Living with HIV (ALWHIV) in Uganda

“…Specifically, family EE interventions make noticeable and significant changes to multidimensional poverty among ALWHIV both in short- and long-term perspectives. Thus, our findings contribute to the evidence supporting family-based EE interventions in decreasing poverty even among the most vulnerable groups [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ], specifically regarding its multidimensionality [ 33 ]. However, future research is needed to explore which specific intervention parts (savings account with savings match, mentorship, financial capability training) produced more potent effects.…”

“…As the studies also show, reducing poverty and social protection were associated with lower risks for HIV [ 57 , 58 , 59 ]. Moreover, since children under 18 have higher incidents of multidimensional poverty and the SSA region has one of the highest rates of multidimensionally poor people [ 60 ], the EE interventions might have even greater implications for reducing child multidimensional poverty in the region [ 33 ].…”

“…The emerging literature indicates that multifaceted interventions, such as providing financial resources and incentives to save, together with support services (training, mentorship), have the potential to alleviate deep poverty [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ] and address multidimensional poverty among vulnerable adolescents [ 33 ]. However, to our knowledge, no research has taken a multidimensional approach to poverty among ALWHIV and examined the impact of a multifaceted economic empowerment (EE) intervention on addressing it among ALWHIV.…”

Bridges-Round 2: A study protocol to examine the longitudinal HIV risk prevention and care continuum outcomes among orphaned youth transitioning to young adulthood

“…Between 2012–2018, our Bridges to the Future study team prospectively followed 1,383 adolescents (10–16 years at study enrollment, who lost one or both parents to AIDS), across 48 primary schools in Uganda, to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a family-based economic empowerment intervention (EEI) comprising of child development accounts, financial literacy training, family income generating activities and peer mentorship. Our findings show short-term success with reduction in multidimension poverty incidence ( b −0.107, SE = 0.034, p<0.001) [ 9 ], improving self-related health (B = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.06–0.43) and emotional well-being, including lowered depression (B = -0.28, 95% CI = -0.43–0.125), hopelessness (B = 0.05, 95% CI = –0.11, 0.21), improved self-concept (B = 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.44), and adherence self-efficacy (B = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.09–0.43); reduced self-reported sexual risk-taking behaviors (B = 0.05, 95% CI = –0.11, 0.21) [ 10 , 11 ]; and positive educational outcomes among intervention participants, including better academic performance ( b = −3.78, 95% CI = −4.92, −2.64, p ≤ 0.001) and higher odds of transitioning to post primary education (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.28, 2.18, p ≤ 0.001) [ 9 – 12 ]. However, critical questions related to the longitudinal impact of economic empowerment on HIV prevention and engagement in care among YPoAIDS remain.…”

Beyond money metrics

“…Considering growing interest and demand from development actors, researchers have begun operationalising multidimensional frameworks into the evaluation of development policies and programmes. Although the body of evidence utilising impact assessments to measure multidimensional poverty has expanded in recent years (Loschmann, Parsons, and Siegel 2015;Mitchell and Macció 2018;Ouili et al 2017;Pasha 2016;Emran, Robano, and Smith 2014;Song and Imai 2019;Seth and Tutor 2021;Robson et al 2022;Wang et al 2021;Vaz, Malaeb, and Quinn 2019;Mauro, Biggeri and Grilli 2015), the evidence base is still in its early stages, especially in comparison to the broader poverty and development literature using economic or materials outcome measures. The dilemma remains: Which methodological approach should be employed to assess poverty alleviation?…”