Evidence database

What the evidence says

Substantial evidence demonstrates that food aid in development and emergency contexts does increase food consumption, does not appear to create dependency or provide a disincentive to work.

What the evidence says

Larval source management was shown to be effective in Sri Lanka, India, the Philippines, Greece, Kenya, and Tanzania. The interventions tested included adding larvicide to abandoned mine pits, streams, irrigation ditches and rice paddies where mosquitos breed, and building dams, flushing streams, and removing water containers from around people’s homes.
This review of 13 studies did not identify any studies including habitat manipulation in advance of a flood (e.g. clearing drains or emptying open containers with water). This does not mean that such activities are not effective, but as there have been no studies, there is no systematic evidence to support it.  
One existing systematic review did not identify any studies including habitat manipulation in advance of a flood (e.g. clearing drains or emptying open containers with water). This does not mean that such activities are not effective, but as there have been no studies, there is no systematic evidence to support it.  

What the evidence says

This review showed insufficient evidence to conclude that topical repellents can prevent malaria. Daily application of the repellents was a challenge with the study participants in the included studies. Insect-repellent clothing may reduce the risk of malaria if bed nets are not available. 

What the evidence says

Point-of-use water treatment with the flocculant–disinfectant combined with improved storage reduced diarrhea incidence by 90% and prevalence by 83% as compared to households using improved water storage alone. This study had high compliance rates and residual chlorine levels. 

What the evidence says

The study finds that both food-for-work and general distribution reduce poverty. However, participation in food-for-work does not reduce the poverty gap and distribution among the poor. Free food distribution reduced all poverty measures. The results were heterogeneous across gender.

What the evidence says

The review concludes that all three modalities work compared to control groups, but that context, program design, and the indicators used matter significantly for outcomes (and comparative impacts). Evidence suggests that cash and vouchers are more efficient than food transfers, but that more rigorous studies are needed to confirm this outcome. 

What the evidence says

School feeding programs increase school enrollment by 10 percent, whereas attendance declined by 20 percent for children whose families received generalized distribution. These positive and negative results were more pronounced in high-conflict areas. School feeding also decreased children spent working, whereas generalized feeding did the opposite. 

What the evidence says

This systematic review identified one report studying health outcomes for distributing chlorine tablets after a typhoon and flooding in Bangladesh. The review mentions a 55% diarrhea reduction was measured in children under five, but this effect was not-significant (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19-1.03) and the quality of the evidence was very low.
A systematic review of WaSH interventions in emergency situations identified five factors that influence the success of WaSH interventions: the taste and smell of the water, ease of use of the method, trust or fear regarding the method and those providing the intervention, perceptions of effectiveness (communities tend to overestimate effectiveness) and means of communication. Radio and face-to-face communication were preferred across contexts.

What the evidence says

For every ￡1 spent on early action, target households received an average of ￡2.58 in value compared to humanitarian response alone. Beneficiary households received a value of ￡1.61 in social value per pound spent even if no crisis occurred. 

What the evidence says

Providing education on how to appropriately use the bed nets may increase the number of both adults and children actually sleeping under the bed nets.
Offering people incentives to use bed nets does not seem to influence whether people choose to use them.  

What the evidence says

The study was unable to detect a difference in stress levels between beneficiary and comparison groups in Mongolia. 

A greater number of Mongolian recipients of the cash and animal care kits sold livestock, but recipient households sold fewer animals on average than households in comparison communities. This study showed no discernable benefits on household's ability to afford basic necessities or on food consumption patterns.

Mongolian households who received anticipatory assistance lost 50% fewer horses than comparison households. Offspring survival rates for goats were 11 percent higher than in comparison communities, and 7 percent higher for young sheep. Beneficiaries who reported receiving assistance earlier (rather than later) experienced a statistically significant reduction in livestock mortality overall, suggesting that the timing of the assistance matters. 

What the evidence says

Voucher fairs for essential home goods had a strong, positive effect on adult mental health and a moderately positive effect on social cohesion and resilience. There was no impact on child physical health. 

What the evidence says

There is some evidence that the provision of food aid to pastoralists may undermine their livelihood strategies, lead to changes in mobility patterns, such as sedentarization, strengthen herd growth, reduce livestock sales, and fill income gaps.