Randomised controlled pilot feasibility trial of an early intervention programme for young infants with neurodevelopmental impairment in Uganda: a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Early intervention programmes (EIPs) for infants with neurodevelopmental impairment have been poorly studied especially in low-income settings. We aim to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a group participatory EIP, the 'ABAaNA EIP', for young children with neurodevelopmental impairment in Uganda. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a pilot feasibility, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the EIP with standard care across two study sites (one urban, one rural) in central Uganda. Eligible infants (n=126, age 6-11 completed months) with neurodevelopmental impairment (defined as a developmental quotient <70 on Griffiths Scales of Mental Development, and, or Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination score <60) will be recruited and randomised to the intervention or standard care arm. Intervention arm families will receive the 10-modular, peer-facilitated, participatory, community-based programme over 6 months. Recruited families will be followed up at 6 and 12 months after recruitment, and assessors will be blinded to the trial allocation. The primary hypothesis is that the ABAaNA EIP is feasible and acceptable when compared with standard care. Primary outcomes of interest are feasibility (number recruited and randomised at baseline) and acceptability (protocol violation of arm allocation and number of sessions attended) and family and child quality of life. Guided by the study aim, the qualitative data analysis will use a data-led thematic framework approach. The findings will inform scalability and sustainability of the programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol has been approved by the relevant Ugandan and UK ethics committees. Recruited families will give written informed consent and we will follow international codes for ethics and good clinical practice. Dissemination will be through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and public engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44380971; protocol version 3.0, 19th February 2018.
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 | 0.038 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.005 |
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".