MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515672903 · doi:10.1111/nyas.12313

Review of implementation processes for integrated nutrition and psychosocial stimulation interventions

2013· review· en· W1515672903 on OpenAlexaff
Aisha K. Yousafzai, Frances E. Aboud

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialCash transfersPsychological interventionFidelityConditional cash transferLatin AmericansPsychologyMedical educationScale (ratio)Implementation researchMedicineNursingPolitical sciencePovertyEconomic growthPsychiatryComputer scienceGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the implementation processes for interventions that integrate nutrition and psychosocial stimulation for children under 5 years of age in low- and middle-income countries. We examine the content of these programs, the delivery strategy, intensity and duration, personnel training and supervision, compliance, and fidelity. A systematic search of the Global Health Ovid database yielded 1020 articles, of which 29 fit the criteria, and two further studies recently completed were reported by author communication. Some of these articles describe efficacy or effectiveness studies where nutritional supplements or education along with psychosocial stimulation experiences or education were delivered directly to children or their caregivers. Other papers describe large-scale programs, such as conditional cash transfers in Latin America, Integrated Child Development Services preschools in India, and World Bank collaborations with national governments in Africa. A summary table of the implementation processes of the 31 programs is included. We conclude with a set of recommendations summarizing what we know so far regarding best practices for integrative programs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.287
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207