Interventions designed to improve financial capability: A systematic review

Abstract

Background There is growing recognition that people need stronger financial capability to avoid and recover from financial difficulties and poverty. Researchers are testing financial capability interventions with adults, children, immigrant populations and other groups, but little is known about the effectiveness of financial capability interventions on financial behaviour and financial outcomes. Objectives The purpose of this review is to inform practice and policy by examining and synthesizing evidence of the effects of interventions designed to improve financial capability. Financial capability interventions combine financial education and financial products and/or services. The research questions are: (a) What are the effects of interventions designed to improve financial capability on financial behaviour and financial outcomes? and (b) Does study(design), intervention (dosage, duration, type) or sample (age) characteristics relate to the magnitude of effect size? Methods We conducted two identical rounds of electronic searches for two different time periods. In Round 1 searched for studies through May, 2017 and Round 2 searched from May, 2017 through May, 2020. For both rounds, we identified and retrieved both published and unpublished studies, including conference proceedings, through a comprehensive search that included multiple electronic databases, grey literature sources, organizational websites, government websites and reference lists of reviews and relevant studies. We also conducted forward citation searching using Google Scholar to search for studies citing the included studies. We also conducted a search on Google using key terms. We hand searched the table of contents of selected journals to identify potentially eligible reports not properly indexed. Finally, experts who were study or sub‐study authors of prior studies were contacted in an attempt to obtain unpublished studies, studies in process and published studies missed in the database search. Selection Criteria To be eligible for this review, the intervention must have included a financial education component and a financial product or service. Studies must have also been conducted in any of the 35‐member countries of the OECD, and included a financial behaviour or financial outcome. To meet the criteria for delivering financial education, interventions must have delivered information about: (1) a variety of general financial concepts and behaviours, or advice about financial behaviours); (2) a specific financial topic; (3) a specific product; and/or (4) a specific service. To meet the criteria for access to a financial product or service, interventions must have facilitated access to one or more of the following: (1) a child development account; (2) a retirement account through an employer; (3) a ‘second chance’ checking account; (4) a matched savings account; (5) a financial service, such as financial counselling or coaching; (6) a bank account; (7) an investment vehicle; or (8) a home mortgage loan product. Data Collection and An...

Interventions Designed to Improve Financial Capability: A Systematic Review

“…As seen in Figure 1, the search resulted in 35,484 possibly eligible citations. After excluding duplicates, non-relevant and ineligible reports (Birkenmaier et al, 2022) Appendix D), 24 unique studies (i.e., used unique samples) are included in this review. Six of those 24 unique studies were large longitudinal studies that presented unique analyses in sub-studies that used different time points, subsamples, and/or outcomes.…”

“…Thus, we extracted data from 48 reports (including summary reports), and report data and analyses from 24 unique studies. Detailed results information is available from the final report published by the Campbell Collaboration (Birkenmaier et al, 2022) .

Figure 1.Study Screening Process. Review of 35,484 titles/ abstracts for potential studies found in search process.

…”

“…We also searched two research registries, three government websites, and nine organizational websites, and hand-searched the Table of Contents of five relevant academic journals (see Table 1). Search terms were modified according to the databases’ available fields and thesaurus/subject terms when needed (see (Birkenmaier et al, 2022); Appendix A). We also searched the reference lists of previous related reviews (Fernández-Olit et al, 2014; Kasier & Mankhoff, 2016, 2019; Miller et al, 2014) and included studies.…”

“…Discrepancies were resolved by consensus after further detailed analysis and reading. The full-text of studies not obviously ineligible were uploaded into the online platform Covidence, where each study was independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers using a screening instrument (see (Birkenmaier et al, 2022) Appendix B). The two reviewers compared the coding and identified all discrepancies.…”

“…Two reviewers independently coded all studies that passed the eligibility screening process using a structured data extraction form (see (Birkenmaier et al, 2022) Appendix C). The coders pilot tested the code form together using diverse types of studies and discussed any items that were unclear and ensured mutual understanding of all items.…”