ArticleEpidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil2024
Use and filling out of the child health booklet among beneficiaries of the Bolsa Família Program in Salvador-Bahia, Brazil: a cross-sectional study, 2023.
Article in Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil, 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.
- Article
- Implementation and effects of social protection programs for children, older adults, and people with disabilities in Brazil and Ecuador: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare child health booklet (CHB) use and filling out among mothers who were or were not Bolsa Família Program (BFP) beneficiaries.
methodsCross-sectional study with mothers of children <6years attending health centers in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, between January-February/2023. The CHB was evaluated regarding its use (having a CHB, having it in hand, and having read it) and filling out (growth curves, development monitoring forms, and vaccination completeness). Descriptive statistics and the chi-square test were used.
resultsOf the 411 study participants, 66% were BFP beneficiaries. Significant differences were found between the groups regarding CHB use: having a CHB (p < 0.001), having it in hand (p = 0.037), and having read it (p < 0.001). Significant difference in vaccination completeness was found (p = 0.005).
conclusionThere was a significant difference in CHB use and vaccination completeness when comparing mothers who were BFP beneficiaries and those who were not.
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.