ArticleJournal of global health2024
Predictors of early child development for screening pregnant women most in need of support in Brazil.
Article in Journal of global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Home visiting programmes can support child development and reduce inequalities, but failure to identify the most vulnerable families can undermine such efforts. We examined whether there are strong predictors of poor child development that could be used to screen pregnant women in primary health care settings to target early interventions in a Brazilian population. Considering selected predictors, we assessed coverage and focus of a large-scale home visiting programme named Primeira Infância Melhor (PIM). Methods: We undertook a prospective cohort study on 3603 children whom we followed from gestation to age four years. We then used 27 potential socioeconomic, psychosocial, and clinical risk factors measurable during pregnancy to predict child development, which was assessed by the Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI) at the age of four years. We compared the results from a Bonferroni-adjusted conditional inference tree with exploratory linear regression and principal component analysis (PCA), and we conducted external validation using data from a second cohort from the same population. Lastly, we assessed PIM coverage and focus by linking 2015 cohort data with PIM databases. Results: The decision tree analyses identified maternal schooling as the most important variable for predicting BDI, followed by paternal schooling. Based on these variables, a group of 214 children who had the lowest mean BDI (BDI = -0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.63, -0.33) was defined by mothers with ≤5 years and fathers with ≤4 years of schooling. Maternal and paternal schooling were also the strongest predictors in the exploratory analysis using regression and PCA, showing linear associations with the outcome. However, their capacity to explain outcome variance was low, with an adjusted R Conclusions: Information on maternal and paternal schooling can improve the focus of home visiting programmes if used for initial population-level screening of pregnant women in Brazil. However, enrolment decisions require complementary information on parental resources and direct interactions with families to jointly decide on inclusion.
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.