Effect of a home-based health, nutrition, and responsive stimulation intervention and conditional cash transfers on child development and growth: a cluster-randomized controlled trial in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Evidence on the effect of community health worker (CHW) interventions and conditional cash transfers (CCTs) on child growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa remains sparse. Methods We conducted a single-blind, cluster-randomized controlled trial of an integrated home-visiting health, nutrition, and responsive stimulation intervention alone and in combination with CCTs to promote antenatal and child clinic attendance from 2017 to 2019 in rural Morogoro region, Tanzania. Pregnant women and caregivers with a child <1□year of age were enrolled. Twelve villages were randomized to either a (i) CHW (n=200 participants), (ii) CHW+CCT (n=200), or (iii) control arm (n=193). An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted for the primary trial outcomes of child cognitive, language and motor development assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and child length/height-for-age z-scores (HAZ) at 18-months of follow-up. Results The CHW and CHW+CCT interventions had beneficial effects on child cognitive development as compared to control (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05, 0.24) and SMD: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.28, respectively). The CHW+CCT intervention also had positive effects on language (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.15) and motor development (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.28). Both CHW and CHW+CCT interventions had no effect on HAZ in the primary analysis; however, there were statistically significant positive effects in multivariable analyses. The CHW+CCT group (mean difference: 3.0 visits; 95% CI: 2.1-4.0) and the CHW group (mean difference: 1.5 visits; 95% CI: 0.6-2.5) attended greater number of child health and growth monitoring clinic visits as compared to the control group. Conclusion Integrated CHW home-visiting interventions can improve child cognitive development and may have positive effects on linear growth. Combining CHWs with CCTs may provide additional benefits on clinic visit attendance and selected child development outcomes. Trial registration number ISRCTN10323949 Key Questions Box What is already known? Community health worker interventions that integrate health, nutrition and responsive stimulation components can improve child development but evidence from sub-Saharan Africa is limited. Conditional cash transfers can increase healthcare utilization but effects on child development and growth remain unclear. What are the new findings? An integrated home-visiting community health worker intervention benefited child cognitive development and may have improved child linear growth in rural Tanzania. Combining conditional cash transfers with the community health worker intervention increased child clinic visit attendance as intended and improved child cognitive, motor, and language development and may have improved child linear growth as compared to control. What do the new findings imply? Community health workers can improve child development and possibly child growth outcomes; however, additional research is needed to determine the intensity and frequency of visits to optimize impact as well as the direct and indirect mechanisms through which community health worker interventions work. Conditional cash transfers may provide additional benefits on clinic attendance and selected development domains as compared to community health workers alone; however, additional research is needed to directly compare integrated supply-side and demand-side strategies to promote child growth and development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".