Implementation of Reach Up early childhood parenting program: acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility in Brazil and Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young children need nurturing care, which includes responsive caregiver-child interactions and opportunities to learn. However, there are few extant large-scale programs that build parents' abilities to provide this. We have developed an early childhood parenting training package, called Reach Up, with the aim of providing an evidence-based, adaptable program that is feasible for low-resource settings. Implementation of Reach Up was evaluated in Brazil and Zimbabwe to inform modifications needed and identify challenges that implementers and delivery agents encountered. Interview guides were developed to collect information on the program's appropriateness, acceptability, and feasibility from mothers, home visitors, and supervisors. Information on adaptation was obtained from country program leads and Reach Up team logs, as well as quality of visits from observations conducted by supervisors. The program was well accepted by mothers and visitors, who perceived benefits for the children; training was viewed as appropriate, and visitors felt well-prepared to conduct visits. A need for expansion of supervisor training was identified and the program was feasible to implement, although challenges were identified, including staff turnover; implementation was less feasible for staff with other work commitments (in Brazil). However, most aspects of visit quality were high. We conclude that the Reach Up program can expand capacity for parenting programs in low- and middle-income countries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".