Programs for Improving Women’s - 3ieimpact …€¦ · · 2016-06-09Programs for Improving...

Economic Self-Help Group

Programs for Improving Women’s

Empowerment: A Systematic

Review

October 2015

Copyright © 2014 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved.

Carinne Brody, Thomas De Hoop, Martina Vojtkova, Ruby

Warnock, Megan Dunbar, Padmini Murthy, Shari L.

Dworkin

• Female participants come together

• Receive “Economic Intervention”• Collective Finance: Saving or Credit.

• Enterprise or Livelihoods Intervention: Business

Training.

Women’s Economic Self-Help Groups

2

• Positive effects on women’s economic, social, and political

empowerment

• Poorest of the poor often do not participate

• No evidence for adverse effects on intimate partner violence

• No evidence for positive effects on psychological

empowerment

Summary Results

3

• Evaluation Questions

• Theory of Change

• Systematic review: Methodology

• Quantitative Analysis

• Qualitative Analysis

• Synthesis

• Conclusion

Overview Presentation

4

1. What is the impact of women’s economic self-help groups

on individual empowerment in low and middle-income

countries?

2. What are the perspectives of female participants on factors

determining their participation in, and benefits from,

economic self-help groups?

Evaluation Questions

5

Theory of Change

6

Measurement of empowerment?

7

• Economic:

• E.g. Women’s bargaining power over financial decision-making,

women’s land ownership

• Social

• E.g. Freedom of movement, women’s bargaining power over

family size decision making.

• Political

• E.g. Political participation.

• Psychological

• E.g. Feelings of autonomy, confidence, self-sufficiency.

• Systematic critical appraisal of literature

• Synthesis of literature (Waddington et al.,

2012)

• Impact of self-help groups

• Perspectives of female self-help group members

Systematic Review

8

Inclusion Randomized Controlled Trials, Quasi-

Experimental Evaluations, and Multivariate Regression

9

Innovation: Inclusion Qualitative Studies

10

• In-Depth Interviews

• Ethnography

• Focus-Groups

Systematic reviews that only include quantitative evidence

can be considered too rigid, failing to address other

important questions, such as why an intervention does not

work (Snilstveit, Oliver, & Vojtkova, 2012)

Number of Included Studies

11

23 Quantitative Studies 11 Qualitative Studies

Risk of Bias Assessment Quantitative

12

38%

29%

24%

14%

38%

24%

10%

24%

24%

48%

67%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other biases

Outcome and analysis reporting bias

Performance bias

Selection bias

Low risk of bias

Medium risk of bias

High risk of bias

Risk of Bias Assessment Quantitative

13

1. Selection bias: “It is not clear whether the randomization was successful. The

randomization was based on a relatively small sample of 4 treatment and 4

control villages. The authors do not show a table demonstrating balance

across observable and unobservable characteristics.”

2. Performance bias: “The new members and old members appear to be

selected from the same locations, suggesting that bias resulting from spillovers

is an important concern.”

3. Outcome Reporting Bias: “There are serious inconsistencies in the reporting.

The results reported in the text do not match those reported in the tables.”

4. Other biases: “The study uses recall data over a 4 year recall period for the

DID estimation component. This may result in bias.”

Risk of Bias Assessment Qualitative

14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Clear statement of findings

Rigorous data analysis

Consideration of ethical issues

Consideration of researcher-participant relationship

Appropriate data collection method

Appropriate recruitment strategy

Appropriate research deign

Screening Question: Is qualitative methodology appropriate?

Screening Question: Is there a clear statement of study aims?

100%

44%

0%

22%

89%

89%

100%

100%

44%

11%

0%

0%

Table 5.2 Summary of quality appraisal of included qualitative studies

Yes Can't tell No

Risk of Bias Assessment Qualitative

15

1. Recruitment of participants: “The authors did not explain how the participants

were selected.”

2. Data collection tools: “The authors did not describe their interview guides and

data format.”

3. Data saturation: “There was no mention of data saturation as reason for

stopping for recruitment.”

4. Researcher-participant relationship: “The authors did not report information

about the researcher-participant relationship.”

5. Data-analysis: “The authors did not describe the analysis of the data in

sufficient detail.”

Effects on Economic Empowerment: RCTs

16

NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis

Overall (I-squared = 81.3%, p = 0.001)

Banerjee et al., 2014 India

Kim et al., 2009 + Pronyk et al., 2006, South Africa

Sherman et al., 2010, India

Study

ID

Desai and Joshi, 2012, India

0.22 (-0.01, 0.44)

0.01 (-0.04, 0.05)

0.45 (0.06, 0.84)

0.30 (-0.11, 0.70)

ES (95% CI)

0.28 (0.12, 0.45)

100.00

35.51

17.48

16.82

%

Weight

30.19

0.22 (-0.01, 0.44)

0.01 (-0.04, 0.05)

0.45 (0.06, 0.84)

0.30 (-0.11, 0.70)

ES (95% CI)

0.28 (0.12, 0.45)

100.00

35.51

17.48

16.82

%

Weight

30.19

Impact SHGs on Economic Empowerment Based on RCTs

0-.842 0 .842

0.22 (-0.01, 0.44)

Effects on Family-Size Decision-Making

Power: RCTs

17



ID

Study


Desai and Tarozzi, 2013, Ethiopia


0.31 (-0.09, 0.70)

ES (95% CI)

0.45 (0.29, 0.62)

-0.23 (-0.96, 0.50)

0.44 (-0.51, 1.39)

100.00

Weight

%

64.92

21.00

14.08

0.31 (-0.09, 0.70)

ES (95% CI)

0.45 (0.29, 0.62)

-0.23 (-0.96, 0.50)

0.44 (-0.51, 1.39)

100.00

Weight

%

64.92

21.00

14.08

Impact SHGs on Social Empowerment Based on RCTs

0-1.39 0 1.39

0.31 (-0.09, 0.70)

Effects on Economic Empowerment: RCTs

+ Medium-Risk Selection-Bias Studies

18





Study

De Hoop et al., 2014 India

Pitt et al., 2006, Bangladesh

ID


Deininger and Liu, 2013 India


0.18 (0.05, 0.31)

0.01 (-0.04, 0.05)

0.30 (-0.11, 0.70)

0.03 (-0.21, 0.27)

0.12 (0.03, 0.21)

ES (95% CI)

0.28 (0.12, 0.45)

0.28 (0.20, 0.36)

0.45 (0.06, 0.84)

100.00

20.32

6.80

%

12.15

18.81

Weight

15.45

19.34

7.14

0.18 (0.05, 0.31)

0.01 (-0.04, 0.05)

0.30 (-0.11, 0.70)

0.03 (-0.21, 0.27)

0.12 (0.03, 0.21)

ES (95% CI)

0.28 (0.12, 0.45)

0.28 (0.20, 0.36)

0.45 (0.06, 0.84)

100.00

20.32

6.80

%

12.15

18.81

Weight

15.45

19.34

7.14

Impact SHGs on Economic Empowerment Based on RCTs and Medium Risk of Bias Quasi-Experimental Studies

0-.842 0 .842

0.18 (0.05, 0.31)

Effects on Mobility: RCTs + Medium-Risk

Selection-Bias Studies

19




Study



ID

0.18 (0.06, 0.31)

0.29 (0.19, 0.38)

0.15 (0.07, 0.22)

0.04 (-0.20, 0.27)

ES (95% CI)

100.00

39.81

%

42.45

17.74

Weight

0.18 (0.06, 0.31)

0.29 (0.19, 0.38)

0.15 (0.07, 0.22)

0.04 (-0.20, 0.27)

ES (95% CI)

100.00

39.81

%

42.45

17.74

Weight

Impact SHGs on Mobility Based on Quasi-Experimental Studies 0-.378 0 .378

0.18 (0.06, 0.31)

Mechanisms: Qualitative

20

Economic Empowerment

Women report feeling empowered after

handling financial transactions

Social Empowerment

Women reported feeling mutual support within

their groups

Intimate Partner Violence

Initial increase in violence but eventually they

gained respect from their husbands

• Too financially constrained for participation

• Caste or class discrimination

Limited participation of the poorest

21

Revised Theory of Change: Some Key Assumptions

22

Women

become

members of

self-help group

Introduction

Women’s

Self-Help

Group

Husband and mother-

in-law approve

participation

Knowledge about

and time for

participation

No caste and class

discrimination

Revised Theory of Change

23

• Microfinance did not show positive effect on

empowerment in other SR

• So is training the secret?

• What type of training?• Health education?

• Entrepreneurial skills?

• Women’s rights?

Potential Moderators: Training

24

Self-Help Groups have positive effects on

economic, social, and political empowerment

No evidence for adverse effects on intimate partner

violence

Poorest of the poor do not often participate in self-

help group programs

Key Lessons

25

- Scaling of Self-Help Groups depends on

cost-effectiveness and other outcome

measures.

- Self-Help Groups may be improved by

stimulating the poorest to participate.

- The findings are applicable to South Asia

but extrapolation to the rest of the world is

hard.

Thomas de Hoop

202-403-6803

[email protected]

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW

Washington, DC 20007

General Information: 202-403-5000

TTY: 887-334-3499

www.air.org

26

Effects on Political Empowerment: RCTs +

Medium-Risk Selection-Bias Studies

27





Study

ID

0.19 (0.01, 0.36)

0.29 (0.12, 0.46)

0.11 (0.02, 0.20)

ES (95% CI)

100.00

42.41

57.59

%

Weight

0.19 (0.01, 0.36)

0.29 (0.12, 0.46)

0.11 (0.02, 0.20)

ES (95% CI)

100.00

42.41

57.59

%

Weight

Impact SHGs on Political Empowerment Based on RCTs and Medium Risk of Bias Quasi-Experimental Studies

0-.456 0 .456

0.19 (0.01, 0.36)

Effects on Psychological Empowerment:

RCTs + Medium-Risk Selection-Bias

28





ID

Study

0.02 (-0.21, 0.26)

0.50 (-0.55, 1.56)

0.00 (-0.24, 0.24)

ES (95% CI)

100.00

4.84

95.16

Weight

%

0.02 (-0.21, 0.26)

0.50 (-0.55, 1.56)

0.00 (-0.24, 0.24)

ES (95% CI)

100.00

4.84

95.16

Weight

%

Impact SHGs on Psychological Empowerment RCTs and Medium Risk of Bias Quasi-Experimental Studies

0-1.56 0 1.56

0.02 (-0.21, 0.26)

Effects on Intimate Partner Violence: RCTs

+ Medium-Risk Selection-Bias Studies

29



Study


ID


0.07 (-0.06, 0.20)

0.04 (-0.13, 0.21)

ES (95% CI)

0.11 (-0.09, 0.32)

100.00

%

59.79

Weight

40.21

0.07 (-0.06, 0.20)

0.04 (-0.13, 0.21)

ES (95% CI)

0.11 (-0.09, 0.32)

100.00

%

59.79

Weight

40.21

Impact SHGs on Domestic Violence Based on RCTs and Medium Risk of Bias Quasi-Experimental Studies

0-.321 0 .321

0.07 (-0.06, 0.20)

Effects on Economic Empowerment with Training:

RCTs + Medium-Risk Selection-Bias

30





ID




Study

0.26 (0.17, 0.35)

0.28 (0.20, 0.36)

0.03 (-0.21, 0.27)

ES (95% CI)

0.45 (0.06, 0.84)

0.30 (-0.11, 0.70)

0.28 (0.12, 0.45)

100.00

56.53

12.08

Weight

4.86

4.53

22.01

%

0.26 (0.17, 0.35)

0.28 (0.20, 0.36)

0.03 (-0.21, 0.27)

ES (95% CI)

0.45 (0.06, 0.84)

0.30 (-0.11, 0.70)

0.28 (0.12, 0.45)

100.00

56.53

12.08

Weight

4.86

4.53

22.01

%

Impact SHGs on Economic Empowerment RCTs and Medium Risk of Bias Quasi-Experimental Studies with Training

0-.842 0 .842

0.26 (0.17, 0.35)

Effects on Economic Empowerment without

Training: RCTs + Medium-Risk Selection-Bias

31





ID

Study

0.06 (-0.05, 0.16)

0.01 (-0.04, 0.05)

0.12 (0.03, 0.21)

ES (95% CI)

100.00

56.82

43.18

Weight

%

0.06 (-0.05, 0.16)

0.01 (-0.04, 0.05)

0.12 (0.03, 0.21)

ES (95% CI)

100.00

56.82

43.18

Weight

%

Impact SHGs on Economic Empowerment RCTs and Medium Risk of Bias Quasi-Experimental Studies without Training

0-.211 0 .211

0.06 (-0.05, 0.16)

Effects on Economic Empowerment High-Risk

Selection-Bias

32



ID

Swendeman et al., 2009, India

Study

Osmani, 2007, Bangladesh

Nessa et al., 2012, Bangladesh

0.65 (0.33, 0.98)

ES (95% CI)

1.15 (0.47, 1.83)

0.37 (-0.10, 0.83)

0.65 (0.41, 0.89)

100.00

Weight

17.36

%

29.31

53.34

0.65 (0.33, 0.98)

ES (95% CI)

1.15 (0.47, 1.83)

0.37 (-0.10, 0.83)

0.65 (0.41, 0.89)

100.00

Weight

17.36

%

29.31

53.34

Impact SHGs on Economic Empowerment Based on High Risk of Bias Studies 0-1.83 0 1.83

0.65 (0.33, 0.98)

Effects on Social Empowerment High-Risk

Selection-Bias

33



Swendeman et al., 2009, India

Steel et al., 1998, Bangladesh

Nessa et al., 2012, Bangladesh

ID

Rosenberg et al., 2011, Haiti

Study

0.37 (0.18, 0.56)

0.88 (-0.89, 2.65)

0.32 (0.16, 0.49)

0.79 (0.26, 1.32)

ES (95% CI)

0.22 (-0.24, 0.69)

100.00

1.18

71.10

12.09

Weight

15.63

%

0.37 (0.18, 0.56)

0.88 (-0.89, 2.65)

0.32 (0.16, 0.49)

0.79 (0.26, 1.32)

ES (95% CI)

0.22 (-0.24, 0.69)

100.00

1.18

71.10

12.09

Weight

15.63

%

Impact SHGs on Social Empowerment Based on High Risk of Bias Studies 0-2.65 0 2.65

0.37 (0.18, 0.56)

Publication Bias: Economic Empowerment

34

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

Stan

dard

erro

r

-1 -.5 0 .5 1Effect estimate

Studies

1%

5%

10%

Publication Bias: Social Empowerment

35

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Sta

ndar

d er

ror

-2 -1 0 1 2Effect estimate

Studies

1%

5%

10%

Programs for Improving Women’s - 3ieimpact …€¦ · · 2016-06-09Programs for Improving...

Documents

Transcript of Programs for Improving Women’s - 3ieimpact …€¦ · · 2016-06-09Programs for Improving...