A Mixed-Methods Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Hospital-Based Psychosocial Stimulation and Counseling Program for Caregivers and Children with Severe Acute Malnutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) who require nutritional rehabilitation unit (NRU) treatment often have poor developmental and nutritional outcomes following discharge. The Kusamala Program is a 4-d hospital-based counseling program for caregivers of children with SAM that integrates nutrition, water, sanitation, and hygiene and psychosocial stimulation, aimed at improving these outcomes. The aim was to evaluate the effects of the Kusamala Program on child development and nutritional status in children with SAM 6 mo after NRU discharge. The other aim was to qualitatively understand perceptions and experiences of caregivers who participated in the intervention. A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted with caregivers and their children 6–59 mo of age with SAM admitted to the Moyo NRU in Blantyre, Malawi. The primary outcome of the trial was child development according to Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT) composite z-scores of gross motor, fine motor, language, and social domains. A qualitative component with focus group discussions and in-depth interviews was also completed with a subset of caregivers who participated in the trial. Sixty-eight caregivers and children were enrolled to clusters by week and randomly assigned to the comparison arm and 104 to the intervention arm. There were no differences in child development, with mean MDAT composite z-scores in the comparison arm of −1.2 (95% CI: −2.1, −0.22) and in the intervention arm of −1.1 (95% CI: −1.9, −0.40) (P = 0.93). The qualitative evaluation with 20 caregivers indicated that the 3 modules of the Kusamala Program were appropriate and that they applied many of the lessons learned at home as much as possible. The Kusamala Program did not result in improved developmental or nutritional outcomes, yet it was viewed positively by caregivers according to qualitative results. Future research should evaluate more intensive interventions for caregivers and children with SAM. This trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03072433.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".