Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a parenting with home visitation programme to prevent physical and emotional abuse of children in Indonesia: the Families First Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Every year, up to 1 billion children are victims of violence worldwide. Most child abuse takes place in the context of punishment. The Families First Programme, an adaptation of the Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting Programme to the West Java context, is a parenting support programme anchored on children’s rights that gives parents guidance on child development, parenting and positive discipline practices. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of the Families First Programme compared with a waitlist control group. Methods and analysis This is a pragmatic, parallel-group, stratified, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Twenty rural and urban villages in the Cianjur District, Indonesia, involving 720 caregivers of children up to 7 years of age, will be randomised. Villages will receive either a parenting programme consisting of 10 group sessions and four home visits over 3 months and standard community health and social services or just the latter. After completion of the trial period, the programme will be offered to those in the delayed group. Outcome data will be collected before randomisation (baseline), immediately postintervention (3 months postrandomisation) and 6 months later (9 months postrandomisation). The primary outcome will be frequency of physical and emotional punishment as measured by a weighted sum from three self-report items. Primary outcome analysis will use Poisson regression with generalised estimating equations and assess the interaction between intervention and time over baseline and 3 and 9 months postrandomisation assessments. Concurrent process evaluation will be conducted to assess programme satisfaction and facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the programme generalisable to other settings. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from McGill University and Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences and events for decision-makers, including in the participating communities.
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 | 0.030 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.152 | 0.018 |
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".