Effectiveness of a community‐based responsive feeding programme in rural Bangladesh: a cluster randomized field trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responsive complementary feeding, whereby the mother feeds her child in response to child cues of hunger state and psychomotor abilities, is a problem in some countries, and likely contributes to malnutrition. Interventions are needed to evaluate whether promoting responsive feeding would add any benefit. Using a cluster randomized field trial, we evaluated a six-session educational programme that emphasized practice of two key behaviours, namely child self-feeding and maternal responsiveness. One hundred mothers and their 12- to 24-month-olds attended the sessions as part of village clusters randomly assigned to the intervention group. A similar number of controls received sessions on foods to feed and nutritional disorders. Outcomes assessed at pre-test, 2-week post-intervention and again 5-months post-intervention included weight, mouthfuls of food taken, self-feeding and maternal responsiveness. Research assistants, blind to group assignment, observed and coded mother and child behaviours during the midday meal. Secondary measures included foods fed and feeding messages recalled. Analysis was based on intention to treat and accounted for clustering. Only 10% of each group was lost to follow-up. Weight (d = 0.28), weight gain (d = 0.48) and child self-feeding (d = 0.30) were significantly higher in the responsive feeding group. Mouthfuls of food eaten and maternal responsiveness were not significantly increased by the intervention. Mothers in the intervention gave their children more vegetables, and spontaneously recalled more feeding messages at the 5-month follow-up. These results provide evidence that self-feeding and weight gain can improve by targeting specific behaviours, while maternal responsiveness may require more intensive strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".