Towards a better understanding of real-world home-visiting programs: a large-scale effectiveness study of parenting mechanisms in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: The scale-up of parenting programmes to support early childhood development (ECD) is poorly understood. Little is known about how and when early interventions are most effective. Sustainability of ECD programming requires a better understanding of the mechanisms of real-world interventions. We examined the effects on caregiving practices of Primeira Infância Melhor (PIM), a state-wide home-visiting programme in Brazil. METHODS: This propensity score matched, longitudinal, quasiexperimental study uses data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort. We matched children who received PIM at any age with other cohort children on 25 key covariates. Sensitivity, guidance and responsiveness were assessed using video-recorded play tasks. Coerciveness and the parent-child relationship were assessed using the Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales. All parenting outcomes were examined at age 4 years. Separate moderation analyses were conducted for each effect modifier: family income, child age and duration of participation. RESULTS: Out of 4275 children in the cohort, 797 were enrolled in PIM up to age 4 years. 3018 children (70.6%) were included in the analytic sample, of whom 587 received PIM and 2431 were potential controls. We found a positive effect of PIM on responsiveness (ß=0.08, 95% CIs 0.002 to 0.16) and sensitivity (ß=0.10, 95% CIs 0.02 to 0.19). No effect was found for any secondary outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed a stronger positive effect on sensitivity for low-income parents (ß=0.18, 95% CIs 0.03 to 0.34). CONCLUSION: A state-wide, home-visiting programme in Brazil improved aspects of responsive caregiving. Effects were more pronounced for low-income families, suggesting benefits of purposeful targeting.

A scoping review and survey provides the rationale, perceptions, and preferences for the integration of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses and GRADE assessments.

OBJECTIVES: To review the literature and obtain preferences and perceptions from experts regarding the role of randomized studies (RSs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) in systematic reviews of intervention effects. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scoping review and survey of experts. Using levels of certainty developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group, experts expressed their preferences about the use of RS and NRS in health syntheses. RESULTS: Of 189 respondents, 123 had the expertise required to answer the questionnaire; 116 provided their extent of agreement with approaches to use NRS with RS. Most respondents would include NRS when RS was unfeasible (83.6%) or unethical (71.5%) and a majority to maximize the body of evidence (66.3%), compare results in NRS and RS (53.5%) and to identify subgroups (51.7%). Sizable minorities would include NRS and RS to address the effect of randomization (29.5%) or because the question being addressed was a public-health intervention (36.5%). In summary of findings tables, most respondents would include both bodies of evidence-in two rows in the same table-when RS provided moderate, low, or very-low certainty evidence; even when RS provided high certainty evidence, a sizable minority (25%) would still present results from both bodies of evidence. Very few (3.6%) would, under realistic circumstances, pool RS and NRS results. CONCLUSIONS: Most experts would include both RS and NRS in the same review under a wide variety of circumstances, but almost all would present results of two bodies of evidence separately.