ArticleImplementation science communications2026
An implementation strategy bundle to improve home visit quality of the national child development program in Brazil: an implementation feasibility trial.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrograma Criança Feliz (PCF) is Brazil's home visitation program aimed at enhancing early childhood development. Evaluations of the program have found significant program challenges and implementation barriers, including the lack of a structured curriculum, insufficient training, and little supervisory support. This study tests the revised content of the home visits and new implementation strategies aimed at addressing these barriers and enhancing the quality of PCF home visits.
methodsThe implementation strategies were piloted across 8 diverse municipalities in an implementation feasibility trial. The strategy bundle included a 40-hour initial training for home visitors using demonstration and simulation-based methods (based on the Reach Up methodology), an 8-hour supervision-focused training module for supervisors, and standardized home visit guidelines and an activities compendium. The new strategies were assessed using a one group pre-post analysis along with mixed methods to assess the extent to which they were acceptable, feasible, and associated with a change in home visit quality. A paired t-test and an independent t-test analysis were used to assess the change in home visit quality. The implementation outcomes were assessed with qualitative analysis and the Framework Method approach.
resultsThe proposed home visitation guidelines, material, training, and supervision process were determined to be highly acceptable, feasible, and associated with improved quality of home visits. The home visit quality scores significantly increased by 14.68 points (SD = 14.89, CI 95%: 7.27-22.08, p = 0.0006), according to the paired t-test. The study participants provide insightful suggestions for adaptations that can occur before testing the strategies more broadly. Key suggested adaptations included adjusting activity difficulty to individual developmental levels rather than age alone, shortening training duration to improve staff access, and incorporating guidance for culturally diverse and traditional communities.
conclusionThe findings suggest three transferable design principles for home visitation and paraprofessional-delivered public health programs: reducing excessive discretion through structured, age-appropriate visit guidance; externalizing quality through experiential training methods such as demonstration and role-play; and embedding feedback loops through structured supervision and monitoring. These principles may generalize to programs facing heterogeneous staff preparation, high turnover, and limited supervisory capacity.
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.