Implementation Quality of an Early Childhood Parenting Program in Colombia and Child Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial of an enhancement to an existing parenting program in rural Colombia (called the Family, Women, and Infancy Program [FAMI]), and found benefits to parenting practices and child development. In this study, we examine the effects of the enhancement on the quality of intervention implementation and examine associations between quality and child and maternal outcomes. METHODS: In Colombia, 340 FAMI mothers in 87 towns were randomly assigned to quality enhancement through the provision of structured curricula, play materials, and training and supervision from professional tutors, or to control (no enhancement). Children aged <12 months were enrolled (N = 1460). A subsample of 150 FAMI mothers (83 intervention, 67 control) in 29 towns (17 intervention, 12 control) participated in the assessment of the quality of group parenting sessions through independent observation. Child development and parenting practices were measured at endline (10.5 months after baseline). RESULTS: In intention-to-treat analyses, we found significant benefits of intervention for the observed quality of group sessions (1.67 SD [95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.11]). An SD increase in session quality predicted an increase in treatment mothers' attendance of 4.68 sessions (95% confidence interval, 1.37-7.98). Session quality partially mediated the effect of the intervention on parental practices and child development. CONCLUSIONS: Enhancing an existing parenting program led to large benefits to the observed quality of intervention implementation. Quality was associated with increased maternal engagement, parenting practices, and child development. The observational measure of quality has potential to promote and maintain quality at scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".