Effectiveness of different health delivery agents of parenting stimulation interventions on child development outcomes among children aged 0 to 36 months: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review will evaluate the effectiveness of different health delivery agents of parenting stimulation interventions versus usual care, no intervention, or a different type of delivery agent on child development outcomes among children aged 0 to 36 months. INTRODUCTION: Stimulation interventions vary in terms of implementation. While some interventions are delivered by professionals, most are delivered by non-professionals. Several prior systematic reviews on this topic have been conducted; however, no known study has evaluated the effectiveness of stimulation interventions on child development by type of delivery agent. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider randomized controlled trials assessing parenting stimulation interventions delivered by different health delivery agents. These will be compared to usual care, no intervention, or a different delivery agent, targeted at caregiver-child dyads of children aged 0 to 36 months. The outcomes will include motor, language, cognitive, and socio-emotional development. The review will exclude studies including children with specific characteristics, interventions that do not focus on parenting, and protocols of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: The review will include both published and unpublished studies. The key information sources to be searched are: MEDLINE, APA (PsycNet), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, VHL Regional Portal, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Theses Canada Portal, and Library and Archives Canada. Studies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese will be included. Critical appraisal and data extraction will be conducted using standardized tools. Quantitative data, where possible, will be pooled in statistical meta-analysis, or if statistical pooling is not possible, the findings will be reported narratively. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021245245.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".