MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133032688

The Kusamala Program for Primary Caregivers of Children with Severe Acute Malnutrition in Malawi

2021· dissertation· W7133032688 on OpenAlexaff
Allison Irene Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMalnutritionFocus groupIntervention (counseling)RehabilitationQualitative researchProgram evaluation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) with clinical co-morbidities who require nutritional rehabilitation unit (NRU) treatment are prone to poor long-term developmental and nutritional outcomes. The Kusamala Program is a four-day hospital-based counselling program for caregivers of children with SAM that integrates nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene, and psychosocial stimulation, aimed at improving these outcomes. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of the Kusamala Program on child development and nutritional status in children with SAM six months after NRU discharge. Furthermore, we aimed to qualitatively understand perceptions and experiences of caregivers of children with SAM who participated in the intervention. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial with caregivers and their children 6-59 months of age with SAM admitted to the Moyo NRU in Blantyre, Malawi. The primary outcome of the trial was child development according to Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT) composite z-scores of gross motor, fine motor, language, and social domains. A qualitative component with focus group discussions and in-depth interviews was also completed with a subset of caregivers who participated in the trial. Sixty-eight caregivers and children were enrolled to clusters by week and randomized to the comparison arm and 104 to the intervention arm. There were no differences in child development, with mean MDAT composite z-scores in the comparison arm of -1.2 (95% CI: -2.1, -0.22) and in the intervention arm of -1.1 (95% CI: -1.9, -0.40) (p=0.93). The qualitative evaluation with 20 caregivers indicated that the three modules of the Kusamala Program were appropriate and that caregivers applied many of the lessons learned at home. In conclusion, the Kusamala Program did not result in improved developmental or nutritional outcomes, yet it was viewed positively by caregivers according to qualitative results. Future research should evaluate more intensive interventions for caregivers and children with SAM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→