Grantham-McGregor Sally, Adya Akanksha, Attanasio Orazio, Augsburg Britta, Behrman Jere, Caeyers Bet, Day Monimalika, Jervis Pamela, Kochar Reema, Makkar Prerna, Meghir Costas, Phimister Angus, Rubio-Codina Marta, Vats Karishma
Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, England;
Department of Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, Georgia.
Pediatrics. 2020 Dec;146(6). doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-002725. Epub 2020 Nov 4.
Poor early childhood development in low- and middle-income countries is a major public health problem. Efficacy trials have shown the potential of early childhood development interventions but scaling up is costly and challenging. Guidance on effective interventions' delivery is needed. In an open-label cluster-randomized control trial, we compared the effectiveness of weekly home visits and weekly mother-child group sessions. Both included nutritional education, whose effectiveness was tested separately.
In Odisha, India, 192 villages were randomly assigned to control, nutritional education, nutritional education and home visiting, or nutritional education and group sessions. Mothers with children aged 7 to 16 months were enrolled ( = 1449). Trained local women ran the two-year interventions, which comprised demonstrations and interactions and targeted improved play and nutrition. Primary outcomes, measured at baseline, midline (12 months), and endline (24 months), were child cognition, language, motor development, growth and morbidity.
Home visiting and group sessions had similar positive average (intention-to-treat) impacts on cognition (home visiting: 0.324 SD, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.152 to 0.496, = .001; group sessions: 0.281 SD, 95% CI: 0.100 to 0.463, = .007) and language (home visiting: 0.239 SD, 95% CI: 0.072 to 0.407, = .009; group sessions: 0.302 SD, 95% CI: 0.136 to 0.468, = .001). Most benefits occurred in the first year. Nutrition-education had no benefit. There were no consistent effects on any other primary outcomes.
Group sessions cost $38 per child per year and were as effective on average as home visiting, which cost $135, implying an increase by a factor of 3.5 in the returns to investment with group sessions, offering a more scalable model. Impacts materialize in the first year, having important design implications.
低收入和中等收入国家儿童早期发育不良是一个重大的公共卫生问题。功效试验已显示儿童早期发育干预措施的潜力,但扩大规模成本高昂且具有挑战性。因此需要有关有效干预措施实施的指导。在一项开放标签整群随机对照试验中,我们比较了每周家访和每周母婴小组活动的效果。两者都包括营养教育,其效果单独进行了测试。
在印度奥里萨邦,192个村庄被随机分配到对照组、营养教育组、营养教育加家访组或营养教育加小组活动组。纳入了有7至16个月大孩子的母亲(n = 1449)。经过培训的当地女性开展了为期两年的干预措施,包括示范和互动,目标是改善玩耍和营养状况。在基线、中期(12个月)和末期(24个月)测量的主要结局指标为儿童认知、语言、运动发育、生长和发病率。
家访和小组活动对认知(家访:0.324标准差,95%置信区间[CI]:0.152至0.496,P = 0.001;小组活动:0.281标准差,95%CI:0.100至0.463,P = 0.007)和语言(家访:0.239标准差,95%CI:0.072至0.407,P = 0.009;小组活动:0.302标准差,95%CI:0.136至0.468,P = 0.001)具有相似的积极平均(意向性分析)影响。大多数益处出现在第一年。营养教育没有益处。对任何其他主要结局指标均无一致影响。
小组活动每位儿童每年花费38美元,平均效果与花费135美元的家访相同,这意味着小组活动的投资回报率提高了3.5倍,提供了一个更具可扩展性的模式。影响在第一年就显现出来,这对设计具有重要意义。