Integrating a Group-Based, Early Childhood Parenting Intervention Into Primary Health Care Services in Rural Bangladesh: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Over 250 million children globally do not reach their developmental potential. We tested whether integrating a group-based, early childhood parenting program into government healthcare clinics improved children’s development, growth, and behavior. Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in 40 community clinics in the Kishorganj district of Bangladesh. We randomly assigned clinics (1:1) to deliver a group-based parenting interventions or to a comparison group that received no intervention. Participants were children aged 5–24 months, with weight-for-age z -score of ≤ −1.5 SDs of the WHO standards, living within a thirty-minute walking distance from the clinic ( n = 419 intervention, 366 control). Government health staff facilitated parenting sessions in the clinic with groups of four mother/child dyads fortnightly for one year as part of their routine duties. Primary outcomes measured at baseline and endline were child development assessed using the Bayley scales, child behaviors during the test by tester ratings, and child growth. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02208531. Findings: 91% of children were tested at endline (396 intervention, 319 control). Multilevel analyses showed significant benefits of intervention to child cognition (effect size 0.85 SDs, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.11), language (0.69 SDs, 0.43, 0.94), and motor development (0.52 SDs, 0.31, 0.73), and to child behaviors during the test (ranging from 0.36 SDs, 0.14, 0.58, to 0.53 SDs, 0.35, 0.71). There were no significant effects on growth. Conclusion A scalable parenting intervention, integrated into existing government health services and implemented by government health staff, led to significant benefits to child development and behavior.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".