BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Evidence is needed on effective approaches to build parents’ ability to promote child development feasible in low- and middle-income countries. Our objective was to synthesize impact of the Reach Up early childhood parenting program in several low- and middle-income countries and examine moderation by family and implementation characteristics.

METHODS

Systematic search using PubMed and Academic Search Elite/EBSCO Host. Randomized controlled trials of the Reach Up program from 1985 to February 2022 were selected. Data were extracted by 2 independent researchers. Primary outcomes were child cognitive, language, and motor development. Secondary outcomes were home stimulation and maternal depressive symptoms. We synthesized pooled effect sizes using random effect inverse-variance weighting and effect modification by testing pooled subgroup effect estimates using the χ2 test for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Average effect size across 18 studies ranged from 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.66) for cognition, 0.38 (CI 0.24 to 0.51) for language, 0.27 (CI 0.13 to 0.40) for motor development, 0.37 (CI 0.21 to 0.54) for home stimulation, and –0.09 (CI –0.19 to 0.01) for maternal depressive symptoms. Impacts were larger in studies targeted to undernourished children, with mean enrollment older than age 12 months and intervention duration 6 to 12 months. Quality of evidence assessed with the Cochrane Assessment of Risk of Bias and GRADE system was moderate. Instruments used to assess child development varied. In moderator analyses, some subgroups included few studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Reach Up benefits child development and home stimulation and is adaptable across cultures and delivery methods. Child and implementation characteristics modified the effects, with implications for scaling.

Poor development in children younger than age 5 years in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is an enormous public health problem, with life-long consequences for individual educational attainment and future income and implications for national development.1  Poverty is a major driver of poor child development mediated, in part, by home environments with limited caregiver–child interaction and stimulation.1,2  Parenting interventions aimed at building caregiver skills to provide responsive interactions and stimulating home environments have benefited children’s development and parenting behaviors,36  and there is some evidence of sustained benefits.7  The challenge remains taking programs to scale with a need for evidence on family and program implementation characteristics that may modify effectiveness.

In this review, we examine the impact of interventions based on the Jamaica stimulation intervention designed in the 1970s–1980s and aimed to build parents’ skills to promote child development.8,9  The Reach Up early childhood parenting program is based on the curriculum for the Jamaica stimulation intervention; additional manuals and materials were developed to support program implementation, including adaptation, training, and supervision.9,10  Implemented in several LMIC, interventions range from small efficacy trials to large-scale implementation, including national programs. The model is also the only 1 developed in LMIC with evidence of long-term gains.11  By focusing on 1 model, we are able to examine how impact is influenced by family and implementation characteristics, which is critical to guide the design and implementation of programs at scale. Previous reviews have been limited in their ability to do this because of wide variability in content and design of interventions examined.6 

The objectives are to examine (1) the impact of the Jamaica stimulation intervention/Reach Up early childhood parenting program on early childhood development (ECD), home stimulation, and maternal well-being; (2) whether intervention affects child development or parent outcomes are moderated by characteristics of child and caregiver; and (3) how intervention impact is affected by implementation characteristics.

We examined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on the principles, content, and methods of the Jamaica stimulation intervention/Reach Up, a play-based intervention that builds parents’ ability to promote child development.8  The program uses a structured curriculum designed to facilitate delivery by persons with a minimum of complete primary education. Emphasis is placed on building the delivery staff’s relationship with parent and child, parent–child interaction and responsiveness, use of language, and praise for efforts and achievements (Supplemental Table 6). The Reach Up program provides weekly and fortnightly curricula for children aged 0 to 48 months, detailed training and supervision manuals, and guidance on adapting for context.10  Originally delivered through home visits, the intervention has also been adapted for delivery through small groups.1214 

We follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) 2020 statement and extended checklist. The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42020206313. Ammendments to the protocol are shown in Supplemental Table 9.

Original trials, published in English or Spanish, were included if the intervention was delivered to parents and children with enrollment aged 0 to 36 months. Studies with additional intervention arms (eg, nutrition) were included only if the effect of the stimulation component could be evaluated separately. Additionally, trials were only included if they included at least 1 of the primary outcomes of child cognitive, language and motor development. Secondary outcomes were home stimulation and maternal depressive symptoms. We considered child behavior and other aspects of parent well-being, but sufficient data were not available. Peer-reviewed articles and working papers/preprints available in the public domain were considered.

We developed an electronic search strategy in collaboration with a liaison health sciences librarian with expertise in knowledge synthesis. Two researchers (J.C.H. and J.S.) conducted independent searches covering the period January 1985 to October 2020. The search strategy was piloted using PubMed, Science Direct, and Academic Search Elite/EBSCO Host. A few modifications were made to search terms and, because of the limited number of Boolean/Phrase connectors possible in ScienceDirect, this database was excluded. A search was also done of electronic databases of The World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank. The search terms are listed in Supplemental Table 8. The search was repeated in February 2022 to identify studies published between October 2020 and February 2022.

Titles and abstracts of articles identified were screened independently by both researchers and discrepancies resolved through consensus. Full texts of articles selected were read to confirm eligibility for study inclusion. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus and 2 researchers in consultation with an arbitrator (S.W.).

Data were extracted independently by 2 researchers (J.C.H. and H.O.P.) using structured forms designed for this review. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and an arbitrator (S.W.), when necessary. Data extracted included the study title, publication year, country, sample size in the intervention and control groups, timelines for measurements (baseline and endline), instruments used to measure outcomes, means and SDs, effect size, P values and adjustment covariates for the outcome measures of child development, home stimulation, and maternal depressive symptoms. We also extracted information on sample characteristics such as maternal education, child age on enrollment and nutritional status, and implementation information such as frequency, duration, training, supervision, and characteristics of delivery staff (defined as home visitors/group facilitators). Information required for analysis but not included in the article was requested from authors.

The quality of the included studies was assessed independently by 2 researchers (J.C.H. and H.O.P.) using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized and cluster-randomized trials to assess risk of bias from the randomization process, identification of recruitment participants, deviations from the intended intervention, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported results. The risk of bias judgment for each randomized controlled trial was scored as “low,” “high,” or “some concerns” (Supplemental Table 9). The quality of the evidence was then evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, on the following components: risk of bias, consistency of results across studies, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias.15 

For each study, effect estimates of endline mean differences comparing intervention to control were transformed to standardized mean differences (SMD; ie, effect sizes) using Hedges’ g with a pooled SD if available16 ; otherwise, they were standardized with control group or baseline SDs. For cluster-randomized trials, sufficient information about the clustering and intracluster correlation is often unavailable. Consequently, we calculated a cluster adjusted Hedges’ g only when there was a substantive disparity between the study reported effect size and Hedges’ g. Pooled effect sizes were then synthesized using a random effect inverse-variance weighting approach and heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistics. Because studies use instruments that either report cognition alone (eg, Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development [Bayley]-III) or combined cognition and language (eg, Bayley-II Mental Development Index, Regional Project on Child Development Indicators), we present analyses for (1) studies that report cognition alone and (2) studies that report cognition alone plus studies that report combined cognition and language. We use this approach also for language and motor development. In the former, some studies report language alone and some report combined cognition and language. In the latter, some studies report fine and gross motor development alone and some report them combined.

Subgroup analyses included characteristics that the literature suggested may affect intervention impact and data were available. Individual-level heterogeneity analysis by maternal education was able to be assessed within each study. We use 2 cut points to define maternal education groups. The first splits into groups of mothers/caregivers who have primary level or less education or mothers/caregivers with more than primary school education. The second splits the groups into mothers/caregivers in the lower half of education for each study sample or in the upper half of education. Child characteristics evaluated at study level included mean child age on enrollment and whether the intervention was targeted to undernourished children. Study implementation characteristics evaluated include duration of intervention, frequency of contacts, size of program, delivery by home visits or mother/caregiver and child groups, whether the intervention is a standalone program or home visitors/group facilitators are paid by government, frequency of supervision provided to staff delivering the intervention (observations of home visits or group sessions), and urban or rural location. Effect modification was assessed by using the intervention effect estimates from each of the effect modifier subgroups. These estimates were pooled within subgroup to generate the pooled subgroup effect estimate and heterogeneity between subgroups was assessed using the χ2 test for heterogeneity.

Figure 1 presents the flow diagram of the identification, screening, and selection of RCTs. A total of 2029 records were identified from the search of the databases. Three additional articles were identified based on communication from review authors. We excluded 1986 records based on titles and abstracts. The full text of 46 papers was reviewed and 28 excluded because they did not meet eligibility criteria, leaving a final sample of 18 studies.

FIGURE 1

PRISMA flow diagram of the identification, screening, and selection of RCTs in this review.

FIGURE 1

PRISMA flow diagram of the identification, screening, and selection of RCTs in this review.

Close modal

Studies are summarized in Table 1 and information on primary and secondary outcome measures presented in Table 2. Thirteen studies were cluster randomized and 5 individually randomized. Three studies had 2 parallel intervention arms,13,31,38  giving a maximum of 21 trials.

TABLE 1

Summary of the Studies in Alphabetical Order by Author

Author, CountryStudy Design/No. of ClustersTrial DescriptionDelivered Through Government SystemFrequency and ModalityEnrolled SampleAnalysis SampleaAge at Enrollment (range, mo)Program Duration (mo)
Andrew et al,25  India Cluster RCT 27 slums per trial arm • Periurban slums in Cuttack
• Intervention delivered by local women hired for the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention = 209 Control = 212 Intervention = 191 Control = 187 10–20 18 
Araujo et al,21  Peru Cluster RCT 60 districts per trial arm • Rural districts with high levels of poverty and stunting
• Districts assigned to first wave received intervention and districts assigned to second wave were the controls
• Intervention delivered by local women hired for the Cuna Mas program 
Yes; Cuna Mas Weekly home visits Intervention = 3894 Control = 2003 Intervention = 3192 Control = 1493 0–24 24 
Attanasio et al,23  Colombia Cluster RCT 24 areas per trial arm • Rural municipalities in Bogotá
• 4-arm trial: psychosocial stimulation (PS), micronutrient supplementation (MS), psychosocial + supplementation (PS + MS), and control.
• Intervention delivered by mother leaders on cash-transfer program hired to the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention (PS) = 360 Control = 351 Intervention (PS) = 318 Control = 318 12–24 18 
Brentani et al,31  Brazil Individual RCT Parallel trial • Urban areas of Sao Paulo
• Parallel trials: community health workers (CHW) delivered Intervention in areas covered by the national primary care program; new cadre of child development agents (CDA) delivered intervention in areas not covered by the program
• Excluded children already enrolled in full-time day care at baseline 
Yes; national home-based primary care program Fortnightly home visits Intervention (CHW) = 164 Control (CHW) = 164 Intervention (CDA) = 249 Control (CDA) = 249 Intervention (CHW) = 145 Control (CHW) = 149 Intervention (CDA) = 211 Control (CDA) = 215 9–17 12 
Galasso et al,34  Madagascar Cluster RCT 25 regions per trial arm • Rural regions
• 5-arm trial: control (T0), intensive nutrition counseling (T1), T1+ lipid-based nutrient supplementation (LNS) to children aged 6–18 mo (T2), T1+ LNS to pregnant women, lactating mothers of children aged 0–5 mo and children aged 6–30 mo (T3) and T1+ stimulation to children aged 6–30 mo (T4)
• Intervention delivered by community health workers hired to the project 
Yes; national nutrition program Fortnightly home visits Intervention (T4) = 750 Control (T0) = 747 Intervention (T4) = 719 Control (T0) = 732 0–11 24 
Grantham-McGrego et al,8  Jamaica Individual RCT • Poor urban neighborhoods in Kingston
• 4-arm trial: supplementation only, stimulation only, supplementation + stimulation, and control
• Targeted stunted children (height-for-age <–2 SD)
• Intervention delivered by community health workers hired for the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention (stim only) = 30 Control = 33 Intervention (stim only) = 30 Control = 33 12–24 24 
Grantham-McGregor et al,13  India Cluster RCT 48 villages per trial arm • Rural villages in Cuttack, Salepur and Bolangir
• 4-arm trial: control, nutritional education, nutritional education + home visits, nutritional education + group sessions
• Intervention delivered by local women hired to the project 
No Weekly home visits or weekly group sessions of 7–8 mother–child pairs HVs + nutr. edu. = 357 Groups + nutr. edu. = 346 Control = 353 HVs + nutr. edu. = 332 Groups + nutr. edu. = 323 Control = 320 7–16 24 
Hamadani et al,26  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 10 community nutrition centers per trial arm • Poor rural area of Monohardi subdistrict
• Targeted children with moderate and severe undernutrition (wt for age <–2 SD)
• Intervention delivered by local women hired to the project 
No Group meetings: weekly for 10 mths and fortnightly for two mths Home visits: twice weekly for 8 mths and weekly for 4 mths Intervention = 104 Control = 102 Intervention = 92 Control =101 6–24 12 
Hamadani et al,12  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 45 community clinics per trial arm • Rural sub-districts in Narsingdi
• Targeted underweight children (wt for age < -2 SD)
• Intervention delivered by government health workers at community clinics 
Yes Group sessions (pairs of mothers) Intervention = 358 Control = 360 Intervention = 343 Control = 344 5–24 12 
Heckman et al,29  China Cluster RCT 55 villages per trial arm • Rural villages in Hauchi County
• Targets disadvantaged families
• Intervention delivered by home visitors hired by the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention =715 Control = 852 Intervention = 541 Control = 547 0–24 22 
Hossain et al,35  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 11 areas per trial arm • Poor rural sub-district of Ullapara
• 3-arm trial: psychosocial stimulation (PS) + unconditional cash transfer (UCT), UCT only and standard care group (comparison).
• Intervention delivered by female village health workers hired by project 
Yes; Government maternity allowance program Fortnightly home visits PS+UCT = 197 UCT only = 188 PS+UCT = 182 UCT only = 179 6–16 12 
Mehrin et al,14  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 20 community clinics per trial arm • Rural district of Kishorganji
• Children with weight for age < –1.5 SD, not hospitalized or requiring constant monitoring, and lived within 30-min walk from clinic
• Intervention delivered by government health workers at community clinics 
Yes Fortnightly group sessions Groups of 4 mother– child pairs Intervention = 419 Control = 366 Intervention = 396 Control = 319 5–23 12 
Nahar et al,27  Bangladesh Individual RCT • Urban slums in Dhaka city
• 4-arm trial: psychosocial (PS), food supplementation (FS), psychosocial + food stimulation (PS + FS), clinic control (CC) and hospital control (CH)
• Targeted severely malnourished children (weight for age <–3 SD) without acute infections or requiring hospitalization
• Intervention delivered by local women hired for the project 
No Fortnightly One or more mother–child pair at community clinic Intervention (PS) = 102 Control (CC) = 99 Intervention (PS) = 59 Control (CC) = 59 6–24 
Powell et al,36  Jamaica Individual RCT • Poor urban area in Kingston
• Intervention delivered by community health workers from neighborhood clinic
• 2 studies are reported; however, only study 2 (an RCT) is included in this evaluation 
Yes Weekly home visits Intervention = 29 Control = 29 Intervention = 29 Control = 29 16–30 12 
Powell et al,37  Jamaica Cluster RCT 11 (intervention) and 7 (control) nutrition clinics • Urban areas of Kingston and St Andrew
• Targeted undernourished children weight for age <–1.5 SD and <–2 SD in the past 3 mo
• Intervention delivered by community health aides from primary health nutrition clinics 
Yes Weekly home visits Intervention = 70 Control = 69 Intervention = 65 Control = 64 9–30 12 
Tofail et al,38  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 15 villages per trial arm • Rural villages in Monohordi subdistrict.
• Parallel trials: children who had iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and children neither anemic nor iron deficient (NANI)
• In addition to the psychosocial stimulation, iron syrup was given to children with IDA for the first 6 mo
• Intervention delivered by local women hired to the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention (IDA) = 117 Control (IDA) = 108 Intervention (NANI) = 106 Control (NANI) = 103 Intervention (IDA) = 110 Control (IDA) = 106 Intervention (NANI) = 104 Control (NANI) = 92 6–24 
Walker et al,17  Jamaica Individual RCT • Urban areas of Kingston and St Andrew
• Targeted term low-birth-weight infants, gestational age ≥37 wk, birth weight <2500 g
• Intervention: phase 1: first 8 weeks after birth; phase 2: from age 7 mo to 24 mo
• Intervention delivered by community health workers hired for the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention = 70 Control = 70 Intervention = 63 Control = 67 Birth 19 
Walker et al,39  Jamaica Cluster RCT 5 centers per trial arm • Children attending health centers in urban areas of Kingston and St Andrew
• 4 trial arms: health center, home visits, health center + home visits, and control
• Delivered by health center community health workers 
Yes Fortnightly home visits Intervention (home visits) = 50 Control = 150 Intervention (home visits) = 38 Control = 123 12 
Author, CountryStudy Design/No. of ClustersTrial DescriptionDelivered Through Government SystemFrequency and ModalityEnrolled SampleAnalysis SampleaAge at Enrollment (range, mo)Program Duration (mo)
Andrew et al,25  India Cluster RCT 27 slums per trial arm • Periurban slums in Cuttack
• Intervention delivered by local women hired for the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention = 209 Control = 212 Intervention = 191 Control = 187 10–20 18 
Araujo et al,21  Peru Cluster RCT 60 districts per trial arm • Rural districts with high levels of poverty and stunting
• Districts assigned to first wave received intervention and districts assigned to second wave were the controls
• Intervention delivered by local women hired for the Cuna Mas program 
Yes; Cuna Mas Weekly home visits Intervention = 3894 Control = 2003 Intervention = 3192 Control = 1493 0–24 24 
Attanasio et al,23  Colombia Cluster RCT 24 areas per trial arm • Rural municipalities in Bogotá
• 4-arm trial: psychosocial stimulation (PS), micronutrient supplementation (MS), psychosocial + supplementation (PS + MS), and control.
• Intervention delivered by mother leaders on cash-transfer program hired to the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention (PS) = 360 Control = 351 Intervention (PS) = 318 Control = 318 12–24 18 
Brentani et al,31  Brazil Individual RCT Parallel trial • Urban areas of Sao Paulo
• Parallel trials: community health workers (CHW) delivered Intervention in areas covered by the national primary care program; new cadre of child development agents (CDA) delivered intervention in areas not covered by the program
• Excluded children already enrolled in full-time day care at baseline 
Yes; national home-based primary care program Fortnightly home visits Intervention (CHW) = 164 Control (CHW) = 164 Intervention (CDA) = 249 Control (CDA) = 249 Intervention (CHW) = 145 Control (CHW) = 149 Intervention (CDA) = 211 Control (CDA) = 215 9–17 12 
Galasso et al,34  Madagascar Cluster RCT 25 regions per trial arm • Rural regions
• 5-arm trial: control (T0), intensive nutrition counseling (T1), T1+ lipid-based nutrient supplementation (LNS) to children aged 6–18 mo (T2), T1+ LNS to pregnant women, lactating mothers of children aged 0–5 mo and children aged 6–30 mo (T3) and T1+ stimulation to children aged 6–30 mo (T4)
• Intervention delivered by community health workers hired to the project 
Yes; national nutrition program Fortnightly home visits Intervention (T4) = 750 Control (T0) = 747 Intervention (T4) = 719 Control (T0) = 732 0–11 24 
Grantham-McGrego et al,8  Jamaica Individual RCT • Poor urban neighborhoods in Kingston
• 4-arm trial: supplementation only, stimulation only, supplementation + stimulation, and control
• Targeted stunted children (height-for-age <–2 SD)
• Intervention delivered by community health workers hired for the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention (stim only) = 30 Control = 33 Intervention (stim only) = 30 Control = 33 12–24 24 
Grantham-McGregor et al,13  India Cluster RCT 48 villages per trial arm • Rural villages in Cuttack, Salepur and Bolangir
• 4-arm trial: control, nutritional education, nutritional education + home visits, nutritional education + group sessions
• Intervention delivered by local women hired to the project 
No Weekly home visits or weekly group sessions of 7–8 mother–child pairs HVs + nutr. edu. = 357 Groups + nutr. edu. = 346 Control = 353 HVs + nutr. edu. = 332 Groups + nutr. edu. = 323 Control = 320 7–16 24 
Hamadani et al,26  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 10 community nutrition centers per trial arm • Poor rural area of Monohardi subdistrict
• Targeted children with moderate and severe undernutrition (wt for age <–2 SD)
• Intervention delivered by local women hired to the project 
No Group meetings: weekly for 10 mths and fortnightly for two mths Home visits: twice weekly for 8 mths and weekly for 4 mths Intervention = 104 Control = 102 Intervention = 92 Control =101 6–24 12 
Hamadani et al,12  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 45 community clinics per trial arm • Rural sub-districts in Narsingdi
• Targeted underweight children (wt for age < -2 SD)
• Intervention delivered by government health workers at community clinics 
Yes Group sessions (pairs of mothers) Intervention = 358 Control = 360 Intervention = 343 Control = 344 5–24 12 
Heckman et al,29  China Cluster RCT 55 villages per trial arm • Rural villages in Hauchi County
• Targets disadvantaged families
• Intervention delivered by home visitors hired by the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention =715 Control = 852 Intervention = 541 Control = 547 0–24 22 
Hossain et al,35  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 11 areas per trial arm • Poor rural sub-district of Ullapara
• 3-arm trial: psychosocial stimulation (PS) + unconditional cash transfer (UCT), UCT only and standard care group (comparison).
• Intervention delivered by female village health workers hired by project 
Yes; Government maternity allowance program Fortnightly home visits PS+UCT = 197 UCT only = 188 PS+UCT = 182 UCT only = 179 6–16 12 
Mehrin et al,14  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 20 community clinics per trial arm • Rural district of Kishorganji
• Children with weight for age < –1.5 SD, not hospitalized or requiring constant monitoring, and lived within 30-min walk from clinic
• Intervention delivered by government health workers at community clinics 
Yes Fortnightly group sessions Groups of 4 mother– child pairs Intervention = 419 Control = 366 Intervention = 396 Control = 319 5–23 12 
Nahar et al,27  Bangladesh Individual RCT • Urban slums in Dhaka city
• 4-arm trial: psychosocial (PS), food supplementation (FS), psychosocial + food stimulation (PS + FS), clinic control (CC) and hospital control (CH)
• Targeted severely malnourished children (weight for age <–3 SD) without acute infections or requiring hospitalization
• Intervention delivered by local women hired for the project 
No Fortnightly One or more mother–child pair at community clinic Intervention (PS) = 102 Control (CC) = 99 Intervention (PS) = 59 Control (CC) = 59 6–24 
Powell et al,36  Jamaica Individual RCT • Poor urban area in Kingston
• Intervention delivered by community health workers from neighborhood clinic
• 2 studies are reported; however, only study 2 (an RCT) is included in this evaluation 
Yes Weekly home visits Intervention = 29 Control = 29 Intervention = 29 Control = 29 16–30 12 
Powell et al,37  Jamaica Cluster RCT 11 (intervention) and 7 (control) nutrition clinics • Urban areas of Kingston and St Andrew
• Targeted undernourished children weight for age <–1.5 SD and <–2 SD in the past 3 mo
• Intervention delivered by community health aides from primary health nutrition clinics 
Yes Weekly home visits Intervention = 70 Control = 69 Intervention = 65 Control = 64 9–30 12 
Tofail et al,38  Bangladesh Cluster RCT 15 villages per trial arm • Rural villages in Monohordi subdistrict.
• Parallel trials: children who had iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and children neither anemic nor iron deficient (NANI)
• In addition to the psychosocial stimulation, iron syrup was given to children with IDA for the first 6 mo
• Intervention delivered by local women hired to the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention (IDA) = 117 Control (IDA) = 108 Intervention (NANI) = 106 Control (NANI) = 103 Intervention (IDA) = 110 Control (IDA) = 106 Intervention (NANI) = 104 Control (NANI) = 92 6–24 
Walker et al,17  Jamaica Individual RCT • Urban areas of Kingston and St Andrew
• Targeted term low-birth-weight infants, gestational age ≥37 wk, birth weight <2500 g
• Intervention: phase 1: first 8 weeks after birth; phase 2: from age 7 mo to 24 mo
• Intervention delivered by community health workers hired for the project 
No Weekly home visits Intervention = 70 Control = 70 Intervention = 63 Control = 67 Birth 19 
Walker et al,39  Jamaica Cluster RCT 5 centers per trial arm • Children attending health centers in urban areas of Kingston and St Andrew
• 4 trial arms: health center, home visits, health center + home visits, and control
• Delivered by health center community health workers 
Yes Fortnightly home visits Intervention (home visits) = 50 Control = 150 Intervention (home visits) = 38 Control = 123 12 
a

 Group-specific analytic sample sizes were not in the published manuscript for all outcomes. In these cases, the study flow diagram was used to approximate sample size.

TABLE 2

Primary and Secondary Outcomes Across Studies

Author, CountryPrimary OutcomesSecondary Outcomes
CognitionLanguageMotorHome StimulationMaternal Depressive Symptoms
Andrew et al,25  India Bayley-IIIa Bayley-III Bayley-III FCIb CES-D-6c 
Araujo et al,21  Peru ASQ-3d ASQ-3 ASQ-3 FCI and HOMEe  
Attanasio et al,23  Colombia Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI CES-D-10 
Brentani et al,31  Brazil PRIDIf PRIDI PRIDI FCI EPDSg 
Galasso et al,34  Madagascar ASQ-I ASQ-I ASQ-I FCI  
Grantham-McGregor et al,8  Jamaica Griffithsh Griffiths Griffiths HOME  
Grantham-McGregor et al,13  India Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI and IT-HOMEi  
Hamadani et al,26  Bangladesh Bayley-II Bayley-II Bayley-II   
Hamadani et al,12  Bangladesh Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI CES-D-6 
Heckman et al,29  China Denverj-II Denver-II Denver-II IT-HOME  
Hossain et al,35  Bangladesh Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI WHO-SRQ-20k 
Mehrin et al,14  Bangladesh Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI CES-D-6 
Nahar et al,27  Bangladesh Bayley-II Bayley-II Bayley-II HOME CES-Dl 
Powell et al,36  Jamaica Griffiths Griffiths Griffiths  CES-D 
Powell et al,37  Jamaica Griffiths Griffiths Griffiths HOME CES-D-20 
Tofail et al,38  Bangladesh Bayley-II Bayley-II Bayley-II FCI  
Walker et al,17  Jamaica Griffiths Griffiths Griffiths HOME  
Walker et al,39  Jamaica Griffiths Griffiths Griffiths HOME CES-D 
Author, CountryPrimary OutcomesSecondary Outcomes
CognitionLanguageMotorHome StimulationMaternal Depressive Symptoms
Andrew et al,25  India Bayley-IIIa Bayley-III Bayley-III FCIb CES-D-6c 
Araujo et al,21  Peru ASQ-3d ASQ-3 ASQ-3 FCI and HOMEe  
Attanasio et al,23  Colombia Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI CES-D-10 
Brentani et al,31  Brazil PRIDIf PRIDI PRIDI FCI EPDSg 
Galasso et al,34  Madagascar ASQ-I ASQ-I ASQ-I FCI  
Grantham-McGregor et al,8  Jamaica Griffithsh Griffiths Griffiths HOME  
Grantham-McGregor et al,13  India Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI and IT-HOMEi  
Hamadani et al,26  Bangladesh Bayley-II Bayley-II Bayley-II   
Hamadani et al,12  Bangladesh Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI CES-D-6 
Heckman et al,29  China Denverj-II Denver-II Denver-II IT-HOME  
Hossain et al,35  Bangladesh Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI WHO-SRQ-20k 
Mehrin et al,14  Bangladesh Bayley-III Bayley-III Bayley-III FCI CES-D-6 
Nahar et al,27  Bangladesh Bayley-II Bayley-II Bayley-II HOME CES-Dl 
Powell et al,36  Jamaica Griffiths Griffiths Griffiths  CES-D 
Powell et al,37  Jamaica Griffiths Griffiths Griffiths HOME CES-D-20 
Tofail et al,38  Bangladesh Bayley-II Bayley-II Bayley-II FCI  
Walker et al,17  Jamaica Griffiths Griffiths Griffiths HOME  
Walker et al,39  Jamaica Griffiths Griffiths Griffiths HOME CES-D 
a

Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development.

b

UNICEF’s Family Care Indicators.

c

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, 6 items.

d

Ages and Stages Questionnaire.

e

Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment.

f

Regional Project on Child Development Indicators (specifically, Eagle’s Scales of Child Development).

g

Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

h

Griffiths Scales of Mental Development.

i

Infant-Toddler Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment.

j

Denver Developmental Screening Test.

k

Validated Bengali version of World Health Organization Self-reported Questionnaire-20.

l

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, adapted version used by Baker-Henningham et al (2005).

Figure 2 shows the overall effect size for each outcome using the Hedges’ g SMD, and the effect sizes in SDs of the instruments used for each study and the percentages of total weight for each study, with the weights representing study precision. For cognition (panel A), the overall effect size is 0.49 (confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.66; P < .00; I2 = 90.46%) for 14 trials. Adding trials that report cognition alone to those that report combined cognition and language, the overall effect size is 0.39 (CI, 0.24 to 0.53; P < .00; I2 = 89.70%) and the number of trials is 20. For language (panel C), the overall effect size is 0.38 (CI, 0.24 to 0.51; P < .00; I2 = 87.12%) for 15 trials. Panel D shows analysis adding trials that report language alone with those that report combined cognition and language with an overall effect size of 0.31 (CI, 0.20 to 0.43; P < .00; I2 = 85.27%) for 21 trials. Eight trials assessed fine motor (panel E) and the overall effect size is 0.29 (CI, 0.12 to 0.47; P < .00; I2 = 75.44%). The overall effect size for gross motor for six trials is 0.05 (CI -0.05 to 0.15; P < .11; I2 = 33.33%) (panel F). Adding trials that report fine motor alone to those that report combined fine and gross motor (panel G), the overall effect size is 0.27 (CI, 0.13 to 0.40; P < .00; I2 = 87.96%) for 19 trials.

FIGURE 2

Forest plots for the effect of interventions on child outcomes, home stimulation, and maternal depressive symptoms. SMD, standardized mean difference. Blue squares represent the SMD for each trial, with the size of the square being proportional to the trial weight. The whiskers extending from each side of the square represent the range of 95% CI. The green diamond shows the overall pooled effect size using a random-effect model, which is centered at the point estimate and the diamond width representing the 95% CI. Data and other materials used in this study are available on request.

FIGURE 2

Forest plots for the effect of interventions on child outcomes, home stimulation, and maternal depressive symptoms. SMD, standardized mean difference. Blue squares represent the SMD for each trial, with the size of the square being proportional to the trial weight. The whiskers extending from each side of the square represent the range of 95% CI. The green diamond shows the overall pooled effect size using a random-effect model, which is centered at the point estimate and the diamond width representing the 95% CI. Data and other materials used in this study are available on request.

Close modal

The effect sizes for the secondary outcomes, home stimulation (panel H, 17 trials) and maternal depressive symptoms (panel I, 12 trials), are 0.37 (CI, 0.21 to 0.54; P < .00; I2 = 92.79%) and –0.09 (CI, –0.19 to 0.01; P < .00; I2 = 62.61%), respectively.

Table 3 shows the heterogeneity analysis stratified by maternal education at the individual level using 2 different classifications of education. There were no significant differences in effects on child outcomes, home stimulation, and maternal depressive symptoms when using subgroups defined by either education classification.

TABLE 3

Subgroup Results for the Effect of Interventions on Child Outcomes, Home Stimulation, and Maternal Depressive Symptoms Stratified by Maternal Education

CognitionCognition and Combined Cognition and LanguageLanguageLanguage and Combined Cognition and LanguageFine Motor and Combined Fine and Gross MotorHome StimulationMaternal Depressive Symptoms
ModeratorNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)P
Definition 1 
 Primary education or less 0.55 (0.15–0.94) .98 14 0.37 (0.12–0.62) .75 0.39 (0.14–0.64) .97 15 0.29 (0.12–0.46) .65 14 0.18 (–0.03 to 0.38) .56 13 0.38 (0.22–0.55) .40 10 −0.09 (–0.18 to 0.00) .65 
 More than primary education 0.54 (0.11–0.96) 14 0.31 (0.01–0.60) 0.39 (0.14–0.65) 15 0.23 (0.03–0.43) 14 0.27 (0.03–0.51) 13 0.28 (0.10–0.46) 10 −0.05 (–0.20 to 0.09) 
Definition 2 
 Lower half education 10 0.58 (0.27–0.88) .91 16 0.41 (0.19–0.63) .89 11 0.44 (0.21–0.66) .73 17 0.33 (0.17–0.50) .70 16 0.28 (0.09–0.46) .90 15 0.40 (0.24–0.55) .35 11 −0.11 (–0.20 to −0.01) .46 
 Upper half education 10 0.55 (0.18–0.92) 16 0.39 (0.14–0.64) 11 0.38 (0.13–0.63) 17 0.29 (0.11–0.46) 16 0.26 (0.02–0.49) 15 0.29 (0.14–0.44) 11 −0.04 (–0.18 to 0.09) 
CognitionCognition and Combined Cognition and LanguageLanguageLanguage and Combined Cognition and LanguageFine Motor and Combined Fine and Gross MotorHome StimulationMaternal Depressive Symptoms
ModeratorNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)P
Definition 1 
 Primary education or less 0.55 (0.15–0.94) .98 14 0.37 (0.12–0.62) .75 0.39 (0.14–0.64) .97 15 0.29 (0.12–0.46) .65 14 0.18 (–0.03 to 0.38) .56 13 0.38 (0.22–0.55) .40 10 −0.09 (–0.18 to 0.00) .65 
 More than primary education 0.54 (0.11–0.96) 14 0.31 (0.01–0.60) 0.39 (0.14–0.65) 15 0.23 (0.03–0.43) 14 0.27 (0.03–0.51) 13 0.28 (0.10–0.46) 10 −0.05 (–0.20 to 0.09) 
Definition 2 
 Lower half education 10 0.58 (0.27–0.88) .91 16 0.41 (0.19–0.63) .89 11 0.44 (0.21–0.66) .73 17 0.33 (0.17–0.50) .70 16 0.28 (0.09–0.46) .90 15 0.40 (0.24–0.55) .35 11 −0.11 (–0.20 to −0.01) .46 
 Upper half education 10 0.55 (0.18–0.92) 16 0.39 (0.14–0.64) 11 0.38 (0.13–0.63) 17 0.29 (0.11–0.46) 16 0.26 (0.02–0.49) 15 0.29 (0.14–0.44) 11 −0.04 (–0.18 to 0.09) 

N = number of trials represented in subgroup analysis. P value corresponds to test of subgroup differences. 

Table 4 shows the study-level heterogeneity by the 9 possible moderator variables described in the analysis section. We do not include fine motor and gross motor separately because there are only 8 and 6 trials, respectively, leading to some subgroups with <3 trials. Average effect sizes were larger in subgroups with mean child age on enrollment >12 months for cognition, language, and combined motor development, and larger in studies targeted to undernourished children in all domains.

TABLE 4

Subgroup Results for the Effect of Interventions on Child Outcomes, Home Stimulation, and Maternal Depressive Symptoms Stratified by Trial Level Characteristics

CognitionCognition and Combined Cognition and LanguageLanguageLanguage and Combined Cognition and LanguageFine Motor and combined Fine and Gross MotorHome StimulationMaternal Depressive Symptoms
ModeratorNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)P
Trials stratified by enrollment age 
 Mean age ≤12 mo 0.29 (0.16 to 0.43) .01* 0.29 (0.17 to 0.42) .26 0.23 (0.11 to 0.34) .02* 0.23 (0.12 to 0.34) .20 0.10 (0.04 to 0.17) .02* 0.34 (0.18 to 0.50) .71 −0.02 (–0.12 to 0.08) .27 
 >12 mo 0.67 (0.40 to 0.94) 12 0.44 (0.21 to 0.66) 0.52 (0.31 to 0.73) 13 0.37 (0.19 to 0.54) 11 0.36 (0.16 to 0.57) 0.40 (0.12 to 0.68) −0.12 (–0.27 to 0.03) 
Trials stratified by child targeted to undernourished 
 No 0.29 (0.18 to 0.39) .00* 13 0.23 (0.12 to 0.33) .00* 10 0.25 (0.16 to 0.34) .04* 14 0.21 (0.12 to 0.30) .02* 12 0.11 (0.06 to 0.17) .01* 11 0.23 (0.09 to 0.37) .00* −0.02 (-0.11 to 0.08) .00* 
 Yes 0.83 (0.59 to 1.07) 0.67 (0.42 to 0.93) 0.58 (0.28 to 0.87) 0.50 (0.28 to 0.73) 0.49 (0.21 to 0.77) 0.67 (0.40 to 0.94) −0.24 (–0.37 to −0.12) 
Trials stratified by number of children receiving intervention 
 <300 0.60 (0.37 to 0.82) .17 13 0.41 (0.21 to 0.60) .75 0.48 (0.25 to 0.72) .14 13 0.34 (0.16 to 0.52) .62 11 0.34 (0.12 to 0.55) .23 10 0.41 (0.18 to 0.64) .63 −0.13 (–0.27 to 0.02) .33 
 ≥300 0.36 (0.12 to 0.61) 0.36 (0.15 to 0.57) 0.28 (0.14 to 0.42) 0.28 (0.16 to 0.41) 0.18 (0.07 to 0.30) 0.33 (0.09 to 0.57) −0.03 (–0.14 to 0.07) 
Trials stratified by type of delivery 
 HV 11 0.36 (0.23 to 0.49) .07* 17 0.28 (0.17 to 0.39) .03* 12 0.28 (0.17 to 0.40) .03* 18 0.23 (0.14 to 0.33) .01* 16 0.15 (0.08 to 0.21) .09* 14 0.27 (0.14 to 0.40) .05* −0.06 (–0.17 to 0.05) .52 
 Group 0.79 (0.34 to 1.24) 0.79 (0.34 to 1.24) 0.61 (0.34 to 0.88) 0.61 (0.34 to 0.88) 0.58 (0.09 to 1.06) 0.77 (0.29 to 1.25) −0.14 (–0.37 to 0.09) 
Trials stratified by the duration of the intervention 
 ≤12 mo 0.73 (0.47 to 0.99) .00* 12 0.44 (0.22 to 0.66) .22 0.60 (0.39 to 0.82) .00* 12 0.37 (0.19 to 0.56) .14 10 0.35 (0.12 to 0.57) .06* 0.52 (0.20 to 0.83) .07* −0.12 (–0.26 to 0.02) .38 
 >12 mo 0.28 (0.16 to 0.40) 0.28 (0.16 to 0.40) 0.22 (0.13 to 0.31) 0.22 (0.13 to 0.31) 0.12 (0.06 to 0.19) 0.22 (0.14 to 0.29) −0.04 (–0.16 to 0.09) 
Trials stratified by the frequency of visits 
 Fortnightly 0.52 (0.18 to 0.87) .52 0.37 (0.09 to 0.65) .90 0.39 (0.14 to 0.64) .72 0.28 (0.07 to 0.49) .86 0.31 (0.02 to 0.60) .43 0.42 (0.13 to 0.71) .39 −0.09 (–0.23 to 0.05) .90 
 Weekly 0.41 (0.28 to 0.53) 11 0.35 (0.27 to 0.44) 0.34 (0.20 to 0.48) 12 0.30 (0.21 to 0.39) 12 0.19 (0.10 to 0.27) 0.28 (0.18 to 0.39) −0.08 (–0.22 to 0.06) 
Trials stratified by the frequency of supervision (observations) 
 Weekly or fortnightly 0.50 (0.22 to 0.77) .94 0.50 (0.22 to 0.77) .38 0.40 (0.26 to 0.55) .81 0.40 (0.26 to 0.55) .27 0.21 (–0.01 to 0.42) .56 0.48 (0.11 to 0.85) .50 −0.08 (–0.22 to 0.07) .87 
 Monthly or less often 10 0.48 (0.26 to 0.71) 16 0.36 (0.19 to 0.52) 11 0.37 (0.18 to 0.56) 17 0.29 (0.15 to 0.43) 15 0.29 (0.12 to 0.45) 13 0.34 (0.15 to 0.53) −0.09 (–0.24 to 0.05) 
Trials stratified by who pay home visitors/group facilitators 
 Paid by government 0.33 (0.25 to 0.41) .09* 12 0.29 (0.21 to 0.37) .19 0.27 (0.20 to 0.34) .09* 13 0.25 (0.18 to 0.32) .23 12 0.15 (0.09 to 0.21) .04* 10 0.29 (0.13 to 0.45) .31 −0.04 (–0.12 to 0.03) .37 
 Paid by project 0.61 (0.30 to 0.92) 0.51 (0.19 to 0.83) 0.50 (0.24 to 0.77) 0.42 (0.15 to 0.70) 0.45 (0.17 to 0.74) 0.48 (0.16 to 0.80) −0.15 (–0.38 to 0.07) 
Trials stratified by geographic location 
 Rural 0.46 (0.20 to 0.72) .76 11 0.41 (0.21 to 0.61) .69 0.35 (0.19 to 0.52) .65 12 0.33 (0.20 to 0.47) .74 12 0.25 (0.09 to 0.42) .80 0.45 (0.20 to 0.70) .20 −0.10 (–0.22 to 0.02) .91 
 Urban 0.51 (0.33 to 0.69) 0.35 (0.14 to 0.56) 0.43 (0.16 to 0.71) 0.29 (0.07 to 0.51) 0.29 (0.05 to 0.53) 0.25 (0.07 to 0.44) −0.08 (–0.27 to 0.10) 
CognitionCognition and Combined Cognition and LanguageLanguageLanguage and Combined Cognition and LanguageFine Motor and combined Fine and Gross MotorHome StimulationMaternal Depressive Symptoms
ModeratorNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)PNSMD (95% CI)P
Trials stratified by enrollment age 
 Mean age ≤12 mo 0.29 (0.16 to 0.43) .01* 0.29 (0.17 to 0.42) .26 0.23 (0.11 to 0.34) .02* 0.23 (0.12 to 0.34) .20 0.10 (0.04 to 0.17) .02* 0.34 (0.18 to 0.50) .71 −0.02 (–0.12 to 0.08) .27 
 >12 mo 0.67 (0.40 to 0.94) 12 0.44 (0.21 to 0.66) 0.52 (0.31 to 0.73) 13 0.37 (0.19 to 0.54) 11 0.36 (0.16 to 0.57) 0.40 (0.12 to 0.68) −0.12 (–0.27 to 0.03) 
Trials stratified by child targeted to undernourished 
 No 0.29 (0.18 to 0.39) .00* 13 0.23 (0.12 to 0.33) .00* 10 0.25 (0.16 to 0.34) .04* 14 0.21 (0.12 to 0.30) .02* 12 0.11 (0.06 to 0.17) .01* 11 0.23 (0.09 to 0.37) .00* −0.02 (-0.11 to 0.08) .00* 
 Yes 0.83 (0.59 to 1.07) 0.67 (0.42 to 0.93) 0.58 (0.28 to 0.87) 0.50 (0.28 to 0.73) 0.49 (0.21 to 0.77) 0.67 (0.40 to 0.94) −0.24 (–0.37 to −0.12) 
Trials stratified by number of children receiving intervention 
 <300 0.60 (0.37 to 0.82) .17 13 0.41 (0.21 to 0.60) .75 0.48 (0.25 to 0.72) .14 13 0.34 (0.16 to 0.52) .62 11 0.34 (0.12 to 0.55) .23 10 0.41 (0.18 to 0.64) .63 −0.13 (–0.27 to 0.02) .33 
 ≥300 0.36 (0.12 to 0.61) 0.36 (0.15 to 0.57) 0.28 (0.14 to 0.42) 0.28 (0.16 to 0.41) 0.18 (0.07 to 0.30) 0.33 (0.09 to 0.57) −0.03 (–0.14 to 0.07) 
Trials stratified by type of delivery 
 HV 11 0.36 (0.23 to 0.49) .07* 17 0.28 (0.17 to 0.39) .03* 12 0.28 (0.17 to 0.40) .03* 18 0.23 (0.14 to 0.33) .01* 16 0.15 (0.08 to 0.21) .09* 14 0.27 (0.14 to 0.40) .05* −0.06 (–0.17 to 0.05) .52 
 Group 0.79 (0.34 to 1.24) 0.79 (0.34 to 1.24) 0.61 (0.34 to 0.88) 0.61 (0.34 to 0.88) 0.58 (0.09 to 1.06) 0.77 (0.29 to 1.25) −0.14 (–0.37 to 0.09) 
Trials stratified by the duration of the intervention 
 ≤12 mo 0.73 (0.47 to 0.99) .00* 12 0.44 (0.22 to 0.66) .22 0.60 (0.39 to 0.82) .00* 12 0.37 (0.19 to 0.56) .14 10 0.35 (0.12 to 0.57) .06* 0.52 (0.20 to 0.83) .07* −0.12 (–0.26 to 0.02) .38 
 >12 mo 0.28 (0.16 to 0.40) 0.28 (0.16 to 0.40) 0.22 (0.13 to 0.31) 0.22 (0.13 to 0.31) 0.12 (0.06 to 0.19) 0.22 (0.14 to 0.29) −0.04 (–0.16 to 0.09) 
Trials stratified by the frequency of visits 
 Fortnightly 0.52 (0.18 to 0.87) .52 0.37 (0.09 to 0.65) .90 0.39 (0.14 to 0.64) .72 0.28 (0.07 to 0.49) .86 0.31 (0.02 to 0.60) .43 0.42 (0.13 to 0.71) .39 −0.09 (–0.23 to 0.05) .90 
 Weekly 0.41 (0.28 to 0.53) 11 0.35 (0.27 to 0.44) 0.34 (0.20 to 0.48) 12 0.30 (0.21 to 0.39) 12 0.19 (0.10 to 0.27) 0.28 (0.18 to 0.39) −0.08 (–0.22 to 0.06) 
Trials stratified by the frequency of supervision (observations) 
 Weekly or fortnightly 0.50 (0.22 to 0.77) .94 0.50 (0.22 to 0.77) .38 0.40 (0.26 to 0.55) .81 0.40 (0.26 to 0.55) .27 0.21 (–0.01 to 0.42) .56 0.48 (0.11 to 0.85) .50 −0.08 (–0.22 to 0.07) .87 
 Monthly or less often 10 0.48 (0.26 to 0.71) 16 0.36 (0.19 to 0.52) 11 0.37 (0.18 to 0.56) 17 0.29 (0.15 to 0.43) 15 0.29 (0.12 to 0.45) 13 0.34 (0.15 to 0.53) −0.09 (–0.24 to 0.05) 
Trials stratified by who pay home visitors/group facilitators 
 Paid by government 0.33 (0.25 to 0.41) .09* 12 0.29 (0.21 to 0.37) .19 0.27 (0.20 to 0.34) .09* 13 0.25 (0.18 to 0.32) .23 12 0.15 (0.09 to 0.21) .04* 10 0.29 (0.13 to 0.45) .31 −0.04 (–0.12 to 0.03) .37 
 Paid by project 0.61 (0.30 to 0.92) 0.51 (0.19 to 0.83) 0.50 (0.24 to 0.77) 0.42 (0.15 to 0.70) 0.45 (0.17 to 0.74) 0.48 (0.16 to 0.80) −0.15 (–0.38 to 0.07) 
Trials stratified by geographic location 
 Rural 0.46 (0.20 to 0.72) .76 11 0.41 (0.21 to 0.61) .69 0.35 (0.19 to 0.52) .65 12 0.33 (0.20 to 0.47) .74 12 0.25 (0.09 to 0.42) .80 0.45 (0.20 to 0.70) .20 −0.10 (–0.22 to 0.02) .91 
 Urban 0.51 (0.33 to 0.69) 0.35 (0.14 to 0.56) 0.43 (0.16 to 0.71) 0.29 (0.07 to 0.51) 0.29 (0.05 to 0.53) 0.25 (0.07 to 0.44) −0.08 (–0.27 to 0.10) 

N = number of studies represented in subgroup analysis. P value corresponds to test of subgroup differences.

*

Indicates significant moderator effect (P < .1).

We identified multiple variations in the implementation of the Reach Up program across the 18 studies for which we defined 9 types of stratification, specifically, by enrollment age of children, child targeted to undernourished, number of children receiving intervention, type of delivery, frequency of visits, frequency of supervision, who pay the program staff, and geographic location. These implementation methods were also significant moderators. Delivery by groups showed significantly larger effect sizes compared with home visits for cognition and combined cognition and language, language, and language and combined cognition and language and P < .07 for cognition. Trials with duration ≤12 months showed larger effect sizes than those with longer duration for cognition, language, and motor development. Where delivery staff were paid by a project, there was a tendency for effect sizes to be larger, which was significant for motor development and P < .09 for cognition and language.

The only moderators that significantly affected impact on home stimulation were undernutrition and group delivery and targeting undernutrition was the only moderator that affected maternal depressive symptoms, reducing it for mothers of undernourished children.

For the remaining four variables (number of children receiving intervention, frequency of visits, frequency of supervision, geographic location), there was no significant heterogeneity.

Six of the 18 studies had a low overall risk of bias and 12 were rated as “some concerns” (Supplemental Table 7). The domains that included some concerns were selection bias (4/18 studies), performance bias (4/18 studies), and reporting bias (11/18). Risk of reporting bias was due to lack of a preanalysis plan for these studies (Supplemental Table 8). The GRADE assessment for the primary outcomes showed that heterogeneity was rated low on 5 outcomes (“cognition,” “cognition and combined cognition and language,” “language,” “language and combined cognition and language,” and “fine motor and combined fine and gross motor”) and imprecision was rated high for 3 outcomes (“language,” “language and combined cognition and language,” and “fine motor and combined fine and gross motor”). All outcomes were rated high for indirectness and moderate for risk of bias and publication bias. The overall quality of the evidence for all outcomes was moderate (Table 5).

TABLE 5

GRADE Summary of Findings

Primary OutcomesAbsolute Effect (95% CI)N Participants (Trials)Heterogeneity I2Quality of Evidence (GRADEa)
Cognition 0.49 (0.32 to 0.66) 10 401 (14) 0.90 Moderate 
Cognition and combined cognition and language 0.39 (0.24 to 0.63) 11 657 (20) 0.90 Moderate 
Language 0.38 (0.24 to 0.51) 11 398 (15) 0.87 Moderate 
Language and combined cognition and language 0.31 (0.20 to 0.42) 12 551 (21) 0.85 Moderate 
Fine motor 0.29 (0.12 to 0.54) 7682 (8) 0.75 High 
Gross motor 0.05 (–0.08 to 0.31) 7463 (6) 0.33 High 
Fine motor and combined fine and gross motor 0.27 (0.12 to 0.39) 12 130 (19) 0.88 Moderate 
Overall rating: moderate     
Primary OutcomesAbsolute Effect (95% CI)N Participants (Trials)Heterogeneity I2Quality of Evidence (GRADEa)
Cognition 0.49 (0.32 to 0.66) 10 401 (14) 0.90 Moderate 
Cognition and combined cognition and language 0.39 (0.24 to 0.63) 11 657 (20) 0.90 Moderate 
Language 0.38 (0.24 to 0.51) 11 398 (15) 0.87 Moderate 
Language and combined cognition and language 0.31 (0.20 to 0.42) 12 551 (21) 0.85 Moderate 
Fine motor 0.29 (0.12 to 0.54) 7682 (8) 0.75 High 
Gross motor 0.05 (–0.08 to 0.31) 7463 (6) 0.33 High 
Fine motor and combined fine and gross motor 0.27 (0.12 to 0.39) 12 130 (19) 0.88 Moderate 
Overall rating: moderate     
a

Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

The impacts of the Reach Up intervention on child development, in 18 studies across 8 countries, were generally comparable with results from LMIC from 2 recent reviews of ECD programs with the largest benefits on cognition followed by language and then fine motor development.3,6  The average effect size for cognition is somewhat higher, whereas that for language is similar to Jeong et al.6  The earlier reviews report combined fine and gross motor development. We find a slightly larger effect size for studies with fine motor development separately than when combined with studies reporting an overall motor score. The effect size for the combined motor analysis is similar to that in Jeong et al.6  and larger than the earlier review.3 

The overall effect size of 0.37 SD for home stimulation was lower than in the 2 previous reviews.5,6  Increased stimulation in the home is an expected mechanism leading to gains in child development. Only 1 of 17 trials reporting on home stimulation examined mediation, finding that increased home stimulation partially mediated gains in development.17  Mediation by stimulation in the home has been demonstrated for a few other parenting interventions in LMIC.1820  Further evidence on mediation is needed, which, if consistent, may allow use of change in stimulation in the home to monitor implementation at scale.

The small, nonsignificant reduction in maternal depressive symptoms is consistent with previous studies.5,6  This suggests that improving maternal depression will require additional content targeting this objective.

Intervention effects did not vary by maternal education using 2 approaches to define lower and higher education. This suggests the intervention benefits child outcomes and home stimulation across the range of maternal education seen in the studies in this review. This is consistent with previous examination of differences in intervention impact by maternal education in individual studies in this review,12,21,23,26  except 1,22  and with other recent evidence.23,24 

Benefits to child outcomes were seen in both younger and older children. However, children with a mean age >12 months on enrollment had larger benefits to cognitive, language, and motor development than younger children. This is important for planning of programs in which it may not be possible to reach all children or the youngest children. A previous meta-analysis also found larger cognitive and language benefits in children older than age 12 months.6  Intervention impact on home stimulation did not vary by child age.

The Reach Up program aims to improve the development of disadvantaged children. The studies reviewed recruited families from poor areas, with some identifying them through social protection programs. Some studies targeted undernourished children (low height or weight for age), and 1 study targeted children born low birth weight at term. We found larger average benefits to child outcomes in these studies (cognition as high as 0.83 SD) and to stimulation in the home, and the undernourished subgroup was the only one to show significant reduction in maternal depressive symptoms. Individual study reports showed larger benefits for children stunted on enrollment in 1 study,25  but effects did not differ by height for age on enrollment in contexts where the prevalence of stunting was high.21,26  These findings have strong policy implications and suggest that targeting undernourished children identifies the most disadvantaged families who benefit more from intervention. Consequently, where resources are limited, targeting should be considered.

There were only 3 studies1214  with delivery by mother–child groups, and these had higher average effect sizes than home visits delivery. One study randomized mothers and children to home visits or groups of 8 and found similar effects in the 2 delivery methods, with groups being more cost-effective.13  The other 2 studies involved pairs of mothers or groups of 4 and had large effects. In contrast, a significant but small benefit was reported for overall development from group-based delivery of Reach Up,28  no differences by delivery mode were reported in the meta-analysis by Jeong et al,6  and a recent meta-analysis of ECD interventions in China reported greater benefits from home visits than center-based interventions, even though one-on-one as well as group sessions were provided in the centers.30  More studies are needed, but the evidence suggests that the Reach Up intervention remains effective when delivered through groups. Use of groups may be an important strategy for scaling and efforts may be needed to ensure access by the most disadvantaged families and sustain participation.

Interventions in which delivery staff were project-funded tended to have larger effects than those integrated with government services, where staff were paid by the government. This likely reflects the challenges faced as interventions scale because government constraints affect resources for implementation, timely hiring and training of staff, and lack of monitoring of implementation quality. In addition, in most cases in which staff are paid by an existing service, which in most cases is the government, they have many other duties and their workload affects intervention delivery. An extreme case of this is the study in Brazil where home visits by community health workers employed in government primary care centers was attempted. Very few visits were made, with 83% of families receiving no visits.31  In the national program in Peru, 34% of children initially randomized to treatment received no visits because the program never operated in some areas and there was a small increase in effect size to 0.15 SD when those children were excluded from analyses.21 

There were larger average effect sizes where intervention duration was 12 months or less compared with longer duration. It is possible that initial impacts are greater, and that gains are maintained but may not increase substantially as programs continue. Most of the shorter duration studies continued for 12 months, with only 1 with duration of 6 months and 1 of 9 months, so the finding does not apply to very short programs. It remains uncertain whether longer duration is important for sustainability of benefits. Sustainability of impact has been examined in 3 studies, all with interventions of 18 to 24 months’ duration. One showed medium-32  and another long-term benefits10 ; however, 1 study did not show benefits at 2-year follow-up.22  There are few follow-up studies of other early stimulation interventions.6  Follow-up of a 2-year ECD intervention delivered by female health workers in Pakistan showed benefits to child cognitive, language, and motor skills 2 years later.33 

There were significant benefits to child outcomes and home stimulation and little evidence of heterogeneity in the remaining implementation characteristics, whether visits/group sessions were weekly or fortnightly, in rural or urban areas, whether numbers of children targeted was small (<300) or larger, and if supervision was monthly or less compared with more frequent. For scaling, this provides further evidence that fortnightly contacts can be expected to lead to benefits. Despite lack of significant differences, effect sizes tended to be smaller with increasing numbers of children reached. Furthermore, many of these larger interventions were not at large scale and reached between 350 and 850 children. Nonetheless, this does provide some evidence that significant impact can be attained as programs increase in size. Finally, although effect size did not vary by frequency of supervision, frequency was less than monthly in few studies.

We were not able to examine some other variables that may be important for implementation such as training, as all except 2 studies used recommended training duration, and education level of delivery staff, which was not consistently reported. In 1 study, it was not possible to leave play materials in the homes, which may have contributed to the lack of significant benefits.34 

This review has multiple strengths. First, it uses data from intervention trials that followed the same curriculum and were evaluated using RCTs, which facilitates making comparisons. Furthermore, most studies assessed cognitive, motor, and language development with direct assessment. Only 2 studies used the Ages & Stages Questionnaire, relying on both observations and maternal/caregiver’s reports that may be biased if mothers who received the intervention overreport on children’s developmental progress compared with control mothers. However, Araujo et al21  did not detect this bias because larger effects were found for items collected by direct observation (0.13 SD) than by maternal report (0.07 SD). Moreover, we were able to examine several implementation characteristics that may affect intervention outcomes, including targeting, frequency of visits, duration, and integration with government services. Finally, all the multiple levels of trials characteristics provided evidence on how the Reach Up program could be adapted across contexts.

There are strengths and limitations to using a meta-analysis approach in a systematic review. The trials vary in the instruments used, processes of standardization or variable adjustment used during analysis, and the calculation of effect sizes that we could extract from publications. This common limitation of meta-analyses was addressed by calculating an SMD, in this case Hedges’ g, using the information available in each publication. Care was taken to be consistent in data extraction, which was crosschecked by 2 persons, as was SMD calculation. For this analysis, we used commonly measured outcomes and most frequently methodological analytic approaches across trials. Interpretation of SMD effect sizes may differ across trials because of differences in tools used and population assessed but the strength of this study approach is to estimate an overall intervention effect interpretable in SD units for any given population.

In a few cases, study level estimates seemed to differ in magnitude from most of the other trials. A limitation of the current analysis is that the relatively small number of studies made it difficult to interpret whether these studies were truly different or simply differed because of chance. However, we were able to explore heterogeneity by factors expected to influence intervention effects when groups of studies could be classified together for effect modification testing.

There is a need for additional evaluations of group delivery, and further research on how intervention benefits are modified by the implementation variables evaluated here as well as others that could not be included. This will require that future studies include consistent reporting of implementation methods and adaptations.40  There is also a need for follow-up studies to examine how differences in implementation methods affect sustainability of benefits.

In conclusion, the Reach Up program, adapted across 8 countries, delivered by home visits or small groups and at varying scale, had benefits for child development and home stimulation in the majority of trials. Targeting undernourished children yielded larger benefits and beginning interventions when children are 12 months or older did not diminish impact. Findings suggest small group delivery is a promising strategy for scaling and that interventions of 12 months’ duration yield benefits as good or greater than longer programs. This evidence on implementation methods that affect impact can inform decision making as programs are taken to scale.

We thank study authors for assisting with requests for additional information including information for the subgroup analysis.

Dr Jervis conducted the meta-analysis, contributed to interpretation of findings, writing the analysis and results section, and critically reviewed the manuscript for crucial intellectual content; Dr Coore-Hall conducted the literature search and screening of studies for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence, drafted the methods section, and contributed to critical review of the manuscript for crucial intellectual content; Dr Pitchik conducted data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence, drafted the methods section, and contributed to critical review of the manuscript for crucial intellectual content; Dr Arnold led the analysis and contributed to the interpretation of findings and writing of the analysis section and discussion; Dr Grantham-McGregor contributed to the conceptualization and design of the review, interpretation of findings, writing of the introduction and discussion, and critical review of manuscript for crucial intellectual content; Dr Marta Rubio-Codina contributed to design of the review, interpretation of findings, writing of the discussion, and critical review of the manuscript for crucial intellectual content; Drs Baker-Henningham, Fernald, Hamadani, and Trias contributed to design of the review and interpretation of findings and critical review of the manuscript for crucial intellectual content; Dr Smith conducted the literature search and screening of studies for inclusion and contributed to design of the review and critical review of the manuscript for crucial intellectual content; Dr Walker led the review, contributed to conceptualization and design, interpretation of findings, writing of introduction and discussion, and critical review of manuscript for crucial intellectual content; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

FUNDING: The study received support from the LEGO Foundation through a grant to the University of the West Indies. The Foundation had no role in the conduct of the review. Dr Jervis gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Institute for Research in Market Imperfections and Public Policy MIPP (ICS13_002 ANID) and the Center for Research in Inclusive Education, Chile (SCIA ANID CIE160009). The views presented do not represent the Inter-American Development Bank, its board of directors, or the countries they represent.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: Dr Sally Grantham-McGregor developed the original Jamaica stimulation intervention. Drs Sally Grantham-McGregor, Susan P Walker, Jena Hamadani, Helen Baker-Henningham, Marta Rubio-Codina, and Joanne A Smith were involved in the development of the intervention as Reach Up. All authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

CI

confidence interval

ECD

Early Childhood Development

GRADE

Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

LMIC

low- and middle-income countries

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis

RCT

randomized controlled trial

SMD

standardized mean difference

1
Black
MM
,
Walker
SP
,
Fernald
LCH
, et al
.
Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course
.
Lancet
.
2017
;
389
:
77
90
2
Walker
SP
,
Wachs
TD
,
Grantham-McGregor
S
, et al
.
Inequality in early childhood: risk and protective factors for early child development
.
Lancet
.
2011
;
378
:
1325
1338
3
Britto
PR
,
Lye
SJ
,
Proulx
K
, et al.
Early Childhood Development Interventions Review Group, for the Lancet Early Childhood Development Series Steering Committee
.
Nurturing care: promoting early childhood development
.
Lancet
.
2017
;
389
:
91
102
4
Aboud
FE
,
Yousafzai
AK
.
Global health and development in early childhood
.
Annu Rev Psychol
.
2015
;
66
:
433
457
5
Jeong
J
,
Pitchik
HO
,
Yousafzai
AK
.
Stimulation interventions and parenting in low- and middle-income countries: a meta-analysis
.
Pediatrics
.
2018
;
141
(
4
):
e20173510
6
Jeong
J
,
Franchett
EE
,
Ramos de Oliveira
CV
,
Rehmani
K
,
Yousafzai
AK
.
Parenting interventions to promote early child development in the first three years of life: a global systematic review and meta-analysis
.
PLoS Med
.
2021
;
18
(
5
):
e1003602
7
Jeong
J
,
Pitchik
H
,
Fink
G
.
Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects of early parenting interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review
.
BMJ Glob Health
.
2021
;
6
:
e004067
8
Grantham-McGregor
SM
,
Powell
CA
,
Walker
SP
,
Himes
JH
.
Nutritional supplementation, psychosocial stimulation, and mental development of stunted children: the Jamaican Study
.
Lancet
.
1991
;
338
:
1
5
9
Grantham-McGregor
S
,
Smith
JA
.
Extending the Jamaican early childhood development intervention
.
J Appl Res Child
.
2016
;
7
(
2
):
4
10
Walker
SP
,
Chang
SM
,
Smith
JA
,
Baker-Henningham
H
, and
the Reach Up Team
.
The Reach Up Early Childhood parenting program: origins, content and implementation. Taking a global view on infants, toddlers and their families
.
Zero Three J
.
2018
;
38
:
37
43
11
Walker
SP
,
Chang
SM
,
Wright
AS
,
Pinto
R
,
Heckman
JJ
,
Grantham-McGregor
SM
.
Cognitive, psychosocial, and behaviour gains at age 31 years from the Jamaica early childhood stimulation trial
.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry
.
2022
;
63
(
6
):
626
635
12
Hamadani
JD
,
Mehrin
SF
,
Tofail
F
, et al
.
Integrating an early childhood development programme into Bangladeshi primary health-care services: an open-label, cluster-randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet Glob Health
.
2019
;
7
:
e366
e75
13
Grantham-McGregor
S
,
Adya
A
,
Attanasio
O
, et al
.
Group sessions or home visits for early childhood development in India: a cluster RCT
.
Pediatrics
.
2020
;
146
:
e2020002725
14
Mehrin
SF
,
Hasan
MI
,
Tofail
F
, et al
.
Integrating a group-based, early childhood parenting intervention into primary health care services in rural Bangladesh: a cluster-randomised controlled trial
.
Front Pediatr
.
2022
;
10
:
886542
15
Schünemann
H
,
Brożek
J
,
Guyatt
G
,
Oxman
A
, eds.
GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
.
Available at: guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook. Accessed February 25, 2023
16
Higgins
JPT
,
Thomas
J
,
Chandler
J
, et al
.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
, 2nd ed.
Chichester, UK
:
John Wiley & Sons
;
2019
.
17
Walker
SP
,
Chang
SM
,
Powell
CA
,
Grantham-McGregor
SM
.
Psychosocial intervention improves the development of term low-birth weight infants
.
J Nutr
.
2004
;
134
:
1417
1423
18
Jeong
J
,
Obradović
J
,
Rasheed
M
,
McCoy
DC
,
Fink
G
,
Yousafzai
AK
.
Maternal and paternal stimulation: mediators of parenting intervention effects on preschoolers’ development
.
J Appl Dev Psychol
.
2019
;
60
:
105
118
19
Murray
L
,
De Pascalis
L
,
Tomlinson
M
, et al
.
Randomized controlled trial of a book-sharing intervention in a deprived South African community: effects on carerinfant interactions, and their relation to infant cognitive and socioemotional outcome
.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry
.
2016
;
57
(
12
):
1370
1379
20
Singla
DR
,
Kumbakumba
E
,
Aboud
FE
.
Effects of a parenting intervention to address maternal psychological wellbeing and child development and growth in rural Uganda: a community-based, cluster randomised trial
.
Lancet Glob Health
.
2015
;
3
:
e458
e69
21
Araujo
CM
,
Dormal
M
,
Grantham-McGregor
S
,
Lazarte
F
,
Rubio-Codina
M
,
Schady
N
.
Home visiting at scale and child development
.
J Public Econ Plus
.
2021
;
2
:
10003
10.1016/j.pubecp.2021.100003
22
Andrew
A
,
Attanasio
O
,
Fitzsimons
E
,
Grantham-McGregor
S
,
Meghir
C
,
Rubio-Codina
M
.
Impacts 2 years after a scalable early childhood development intervention to increase psychosocial stimulation in the home: a follow-up of a cluster randomised controlled trial in Colombia
.
PLoS Med
.
2018
;
15
:
e1002556
23
Attanasio
OP
,
Bentham
J
,
Fernandez
C
, et al
.
Using the infrastructure of a conditional cash transfer program to deliver a scalable integrated early development program in Colombia: cluster randomized controlled trial
.
BMJ
.
2014
;
349
:
g5785
24
Luoto
JE
,
Gracia
IL
,
Frances
E
, et al
.
Group-based parenting interventions to promote child development in rural Kenya: a multi-arm, cluster-randomised community effectiveness trial
.
Lancet Glob Health
.
2021
;
9
(
3
):
e309
e319
25
Andrew
A
,
Attanasio
O
,
Augsburg
B
, et al
.
Effects of a scalable home-visiting intervention on child development in slums of urban India: evidence from a randomized controlled trial
.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry
.
2020
;
61
(
6
):
644
652
10.1111/jcpp.13171
26
Hamadani
J
,
Huda
SN
,
Khatun
F
,
Grantham-McGregor
S
.
Psychosocial stimulation improves the development of undernourished children in rural Bangladesh
.
J Nutr
.
2006
;
136
(
10
):
2645
2652
27
Nahar
B
,
Hossain
MI
,
Hamadani
JD
, et al
.
Effects of a community-based approach of food and psychosocial stimulation on growth and development of severely malnourished children in Bangladesh: a randomized trial
.
Eur J Clin Nutr
.
2012
;
66
(
6
):
1
9
28
Attanasio
O
,
Baker-Henningham
H
,
Bernal
R
,
Meghir
C
,
Pineda
D
,
Rubio-Codina
M
.
Early stimulation and nutrition: the impacts of a scalable intervention
.
J Eur Econ Assoc
.
2022
;
20
(
4
):
1395
1432
29
Heckman
J
,
Liu
B
,
Lu
M
,
Zhou
J
.
National Bureau of Economic Research
.
The impacts of a prototypical home visiting program on child skills
.
National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 27356. Available at: www.nber.org/papers/w27356. Accessed February 24, 2023
30
Emmers
D
,
Jiang
Q
,
Xue
H
, et al
.
Early childhood development and parental training interventions in rural China: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
BMJ Glob Health
.
2021
;
6
(
8
):
e005578
31
Brentani
A
,
Walker
S
,
Chang-Lopez
S
,
Grisi
S
,
Powell
C
,
Fink
G
.
A home visit-based early childhood stimulation programme in Brazil: a randomized controlled trial
.
Health Policy Plan
.
2021
;
36
:
288
297
32
Walker
SP
,
Chang
SM
,
Younger
N
,
Grantham-McGregor
SM
.
The effect of psychosocial stimulation on cognition and behaviour at 6 years in a cohort of term, low-birthweight Jamaican children
.
Dev Med Child Neurol
.
2010
;
52
(
7
):
e148
e154
33
Yousafzai
AK
,
Obradović
J
,
Rasheed
MA
, et al
.
Effects of responsive stimulation and nutrition interventions on children’s development and growth at age 4 years in a disadvantaged population in Pakistan: a longitudinal follow-up of a cluster-randomised factorial effectiveness trial
.
Lancet Glob Health
.
2016
;
4
(
8
):
e548
e558
34
Galasso
E
,
Weber
AM
,
Stewart
CP
,
Ratsifandrihamanana
L
,
Fernald
LCH
.
Effects of nutritional supplementation and home visiting on growth and development in young children in Madagascar: a cluster-randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet Glob Health
.
2019
;
7
:
e1257
e1268
35
Hossain
SJ
,
Roy
BR
,
Sujon
M
, et al
.
Effects of integrated psychosocial stimulation (PS) and unconditional cash transfer (UCT) on children’s development in rural Bangladesh: a cluster randomized controlled trial
.
Soc Sci Med
.
2022
;
293
:
114657
36
Powell
C
,
Grantham-McGregor
S
.
Home visiting of varying frequency and child development
.
Pediatrics
.
1989
;
84
(
1
):
157
164
37
Powell
C
,
Baker-Henningham
H
,
Walker
S
,
Gernay
J
,
Grantham-McGregor
S
.
Feasibility of integrating early stimulation into primary care for undernourished Jamaican children: cluster randomized controlled trial
.
BMJ
.
2004
;
329
(
7457
):
89
10.1136/bmj.38132.503472.7C
38
Tofail
F
,
Hamadani
JD
,
Mehrin
F
,
Ridout
DA
,
Huda
SY
,
Grantham-McGregor
SM
.
Psychosocial stimulation benefits development in nonanemic children but not anemic, iron-deficient children
.
J Nutr
.
2013
;
143
:
885
893
39
Walker
SP
,
Powell
C
,
Chang
SM
, et al.
Inter-American Development Bank
.
Delivering parenting interventions through health services in the Caribbean: impact, acceptability and costs
.
40
Yousafzai
AK
,
Aboud
FE
,
Nores
M
,
Kaur
R
.
Reporting guidelines for implementation research on nurturing care interventions designed to promote early childhood development
.
Ann N Y Acad Sci
.
2018
;
1419
(
1
):
26
37
10.1111/nyas.13648

Supplementary data