ArticleBMJ global health2024
Towards a better understanding of real-world home-visiting programs: a large-scale effectiveness study of parenting mechanisms in Brazil.
Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing social determinants of health and equity in early childhood: a qualitative document analysis of national policies in Ecuador.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsOut 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 (β=0.08, 95% CIs 0.002 to 0.16) and sensitivity (β=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 (β=0.18, 95% CIs 0.03 to 0.34).
conclusionA 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.