Effectiveness of Learning through Play Plus (LTP Plus) Parenting Intervention on Behaviours of Young Children of Depressed Mothers: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence has shown that parenting intervention programmes improve parental knowledge, attitudes, and practices, which helps in promoting child development. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of parenting intervention in improving child behaviours. This is a secondary analysis of data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial with depressed mothers aged 18–44 years with a child aged 0 to 36 months. This paper reports findings from the dataset of participants with a child aged between 24 and 36 months. Villages (n = 120) were randomised into either of two arms: learning through play plus (LTP Plus) or treatment as usual (TAU). LTP Plus is a 10-session, group parenting intervention integrated with cognitive behaviour therapy, delivered over 3 months. This secondary analysis reports findings on the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI) and the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME). Findings show a significant improvement in child behaviour (ECBI) scores (p < 0.011) and HOME scores (p < 0.001) in the intervention group compared to TAU at 3-month follow-up. In a low-resource setting, low-cost group parenting intervention delivered by community health workers has the potential to improve child behaviours and quality of the home environment. Parenting interventions aimed at improving child behavioural problems can have significant implications for the child, family, and broader societal outcomes. Addressing behavioural problems in early years, parenting interventions can potentially reduce long-term consequences and costs associated with untreated child behavioural issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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, 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".