Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33148771›Full record

Trial reportPediatrics2020

Group Sessions or Home Visits for Early Childhood Development in India: A Cluster RCT.

Sally Grantham-McGregor, Akanksha Adya, Orazio Attanasio, Britta Augsburg, Jere Behrman, Bet Caeyers, Monimalika Day, Pamela Jervis, Reema Kochar, Prerna Makkar and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of themedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Sally Grantham-McGregorInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, England; sallymcgregor@yahoo.com.
Akanksha AdyaDepartment of Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, Georgia.
Orazio AttanasioDepartment of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Britta AugsburgInstitute for Fiscal Studies, London, United Kingdom.
Jere BehrmanDepartment of Economics and Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bet CaeyersInstitute for Fiscal Studies, London, United Kingdom.
Monimalika DayCentre for Early Childhood Education and Development at Ambedkar University, Delhi, India.
Pamela JervisInstitute for Fiscal Studies, London, United Kingdom.
Reema KocharCentre for Early Childhood Education and Development at Ambedkar University, Delhi, India.
Prerna MakkarPratham Education Foundation, India; and.
Costas MeghirDepartment of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Angus PhimisterInstitute for Fiscal Studies, London, United Kingdom.
Marta Rubio-CodinaInter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.
Karishma VatsPratham Education Foundation, India; and.
Institute for Fiscal Studies · GBAmbedkar University Delhi · INPratham · INYale University · USInter-American Development Bank · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Early Childhood Development for the Poor: Impacting at ScaleR01HD072120 · NICHD · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MEGHIR, KONSTANTINOS · 2012 to 2017
$2.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD072120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPoor 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.

methodsIn 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 (

resultsHome 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,

conclusionsGroup 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.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentNutritional StatusChildCounselingFemaleHealth EducationHouse CallsHumansIndiaMaleMothers

Identifiers

PMID33148771
PMCPMC7786825
OpenAlexW3096252586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.