Effects of two early parenting programmes on child aggression and risk for violence in Brazil: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Violence is a major public health problem globally, with the highest rates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the Americas and southern Africa. Parenting programmes in high-income countries can diminish risk for violence, by reducing risk factors such as child aggression and harsh parenting, and increasing protective factors such as child cognitive development and school readiness. However, there is a critical need to identify low-cost programmes with replicable benefits in real-world LMICs contexts.Methods: A three-arm, randomised, single-blind trial evaluated effects of two low-cost group-based parenting programmes recommended for LMICs (ACT: Raising Safe Kids; DBS: dialogic book-sharing) on child aggression (primary outcome), child development, parenting, maltreatment, and stress. Participants were 369 children with medium-high levels of aggression (mean age 3.1 years at baseline) in poor households. Interventions were implemented in city health and education services in southern Brazil. Maternal reports, filmed observations, child tasks, and hair cortisol were assessed at baseline, one-month post intervention, and eight-month follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses compared each of ACT and DBS with a control group.Results: 368 (99.7%) participants completed follow-up assessments eight-months after the interventions. There was no effect of ACT (standardised mean difference, SMD 0.11, 95%CI -0.05, 0.27) or DBS (SMD 0.05, 95%CI -0.11, 0.21) on the primary outcome of child aggression. ACT reduced harsh parenting behaviour post intervention (SMD -0.23; 95%CI -0.46, -0.01), but not at follow-up. DBS improved book-sharing practices at both time points (e.g., maternal sensitivity at follow-up SMD 0.33; 95%CI: 0.08, 0.57). There were no benefits of either programme for other parenting, child development, or stress outcomes.Conclusion: Two parenting programmes in Brazil had small effects on parenting practices, but did not reduce child aggression or several other important risk/protective factors for violence. Effective early interventions that reduce violence in real-world LMIC settings are highly desirable but may be a challenge to achieve.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | medium |
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".