A Cluster-Randomized Evaluation of a Responsive Stimulation and Feeding Intervention in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine if a responsive stimulation and feeding intervention improved developmental and nutritional outcomes compared with a regular information-based parenting program. The hypothesis was that mothers in the intervention would exhibit better parenting skills and children would exhibit better developmental and nutritional outcomes than controls. METHODS: A cluster-randomized field trial was conducted with 302 children aged 8 to 20 months and their mothers in rural Bangladesh who were randomly assigned according to village to 1 of 3 groups. The control mothers received 12 informational sessions on health and nutrition. The intervention groups received an additional 6 sessions delivered by peer educators who included modeling and coached practice in self-feeding and verbal responsiveness with the child during play. A second intervention group received, along with the sessions, 6 months of a food powder fortified with minerals and vitamins. Developmental outcomes included the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory, mother-child responsive talk, and language development. Nutritional outcomes included weight, height, self-feeding, and mouthfuls eaten. We used analysis of covariance to compare the 3 groups at the posttest and at follow-up, covarying the pretest levels and confounders. RESULTS: At follow-up, responsive stimulation-feeding groups had better HOME inventory scores, responsive talking, language, mouthfuls eaten, and hand-washing. Micronutrient fortification resulted in more weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: A brief behavior-change program that focused on modeling and practice in stimulation and feeding was found to benefit children's nutrition and language development. Micronutrients benefited children's weight but not length.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".