It's increasingly acknowledged that people need more robust financial capabilities to avert and recuperate from financial difficulties and poverty. Studies of financial capability interventions are underway for adults, children, immigrant populations, and other groups, yet the impact on financial behaviors and subsequent financial results is currently under scrutiny.
To guide practice and policy decisions, this review scrutinizes and synthesizes the effects of interventions designed to enhance financial capability. selleck compound Financial capability interventions utilize financial education and/or financial products and services in a combined approach. The research questions revolve around assessing how interventions bolstering financial capacity influence financial actions and the resulting financial consequences. Do the characteristics of the study, the components of the intervention (dosage, duration, and type), or demographics of the sample (age) determine the strength of the effect size?
Employing identical electronic search protocols, we performed two rounds of searches across two distinct time periods. The first round of investigation involved the search of studies published up to May of 2017, and the second round of investigation involved the search of studies published from May 2017 through May 2020. Both rounds of our research encompassed a comprehensive search across various electronic databases, grey literature sources, organization and government websites, and reference lists from relevant review articles and studies to identify and collect both published and unpublished research, including conference papers. selleck compound To ascertain the influence of the selected studies, we executed forward citation searches on Google Scholar, seeking research that referenced them. We also carried out a search on Google, employing key terms as our search criteria. The process of manually reviewing the table of contents from selected journals focused on uncovering unindexed reports that may be eligible. Lastly, researchers reached out to experts, who were also authors or sub-authors of prior studies, to acquire any unpublished studies, studies in progress, or any published research that was not included in the database search results.
Eligibility for this review hinges on the intervention's inclusion of a financial education module and a financial product or service. Research projects in any of the 35 OECD member nations must include either an examination of financial behavior or an assessment of financial outcomes. For financial education interventions to meet the specified criteria, they must have conveyed information concerning (1) a variety of general financial principles and practices, or offered counsel regarding financial practices; (2) a particular financial theme; (3) a particular financial item; and/or (4) a particular financial offering. To be eligible for financial services, interventions must have ensured access to at least one of the following: (1) a child development account; (2) a retirement account offered by an employer; (3) a 'second chance' checking account; (4) a savings account with matching; (5) financial guidance services; (6) a basic bank account; (7) a suitable investment; or (8) a home mortgage
Electronic database searches, coupled with other source investigations, uncovered a total of 35,484 entries. Upon screening titles and abstracts for relevance, 35,071 entries were identified as duplicates or inappropriate and subsequently excluded. Independent coders scrutinized the complete text of all 416 remaining potential studies, assessing each for eligibility. A selection process resulted in the exclusion of 353 reports deemed ineligible, and the inclusion of 63 reports that met the specified inclusion criteria. Fifteen reports, out of a total of sixty-three, were deemed to be duplicates or summary reports. From among the 48 remaining reports, 24 were selected to be part of this assessment because they represent unique research methodologies (utilizing distinctive samples). From the collection of 24 studies, six were characterized by longitudinal design, producing unique analyses through the use of distinct time points, diverse subsets, and alternative outcome variables. selleck compound As a result, 48 reports supplied the data, including insights and analyses from 24 unique studies. All included studies underwent independent risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, completed by at least two review authors not affiliated with the respective studies.
Sixty-three reports from 24 distinct studies—17 of which were randomized controlled trials and 7 were quasi-experimental in design—were reviewed, with findings summarized in this report. Besides that, a total of 17 duplicate or summary reports were uncovered. The analysis detailed multiple previously considered types of financial capability interventions. The disappointing finding was that few interventions, evaluated in more than one study, targeted outcomes that were either the same or similar. This insufficiency of comparable studies prevented the possibility of performing a meta-analysis for any intervention type. Subsequently, the existing data is insufficient to determine if participants' financial habits and/or financial results have undergone enhancement. Even though random assignment was implemented in 72% of the studies, a considerable number of these studies nevertheless displayed noteworthy methodological weaknesses.
A paucity of strong evidence exists regarding the impact of financial capability interventions. To effectively guide practitioners, more compelling evidence is required regarding the efficacy of financial capability interventions.
A deficiency of concrete evidence hampers conclusive judgments on the effectiveness of financial capability interventions. To provide practitioners with optimal guidance, stronger evidence of the outcomes of financial capability interventions is essential.

Livelihood opportunities, including employment, social protection, and financial access, frequently elude over one billion individuals with disabilities worldwide. People with disabilities require interventions that will improve their economic circumstances, addressing the need for enhanced access to financial capital (such as social security), human capital (including health and education), social capital (e.g., support networks), and physical capital (e.g., accommodating buildings). Even so, information is limited concerning which methods are worthy of promotion.
This review explores whether interventions supporting individuals with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) result in enhanced livelihood outcomes, considering the acquisition of workplace skills, market entry, employment in various sectors, income generation, access to financial instruments such as grants and loans, and integration into social protection programs.
As of February 2020, the search strategy included (1) a digital search of various databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CAB Global Health, ERIC, PubMed, and CINAHL); (2) examination of relevant studies connected to recognized reviews; (3) evaluation of the reference lists and citations from identified recent studies and reviews; and (4) a digital investigation of several organizational websites and databases (including ILO, R4D, UNESCO, and WHO), employing keyword searches for unpublished gray literature, to ensure the broadest possible scope of unpublished materials and minimize the chance of publication bias.
We selected every study detailing impact evaluations of interventions to improve the economic success of people with disabilities residing in low- and middle-income countries.
Screening the search results was achieved with the aid of the review management software, EPPI Reviewer. Ultimately, ten studies were found to be compliant with the specified inclusion criteria. A thorough examination of our included publications revealed no errata. Data regarding confidence in the study's findings, in addition to all other data, was independently extracted by each of two review authors from each study report. Collected data and information covered participant attributes, intervention features, control group characteristics, study design, sample size, potential bias, and outcome measures. The marked differences in study designs, research methods, metrics used, and the quality of execution among the studies under review made the undertaking of a meta-analysis, the aggregation of results, or the comparison of effect sizes impossible. Subsequently, we conveyed our findings in a story-like presentation.
Among the nine interventions, only one was geared toward children with disabilities, and only two addressed both children and adults with disabilities. The interventions, for the most part, were directed at adults with disabilities alone. The majority of interventions for single impairments were aimed at people with only physical disabilities. The research designs of the included studies varied, comprising one randomized controlled trial, one quasi-randomized controlled trial (a post-test only randomized study employing propensity score matching), a case-control study paired with propensity score matching, four uncontrolled pre-and-post studies, and three post-test only studies. Our confidence in the overall findings is placed at low to medium, as indicated by our evaluation of the studies. Two studies performed moderately on our assessment tool, whereas eight others received low ratings for at least one component of the assessment. The effects on livelihood conditions were demonstrably positive in all the reported research. Yet, a substantial divergence in outcomes was observed across different studies, coupled with variations in the methods used to gauge the impact of the interventions, and the quality and presentation of the research conclusions.
The review's conclusions hint at the possibility of diverse programming approaches contributing to improved livelihoods for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. In light of the positive findings, a cautious approach is warranted given the methodological limitations identified in every study included. We require further meticulous evaluations of support programs for individuals with disabilities in low-resource settings to address livelihood needs.