Effect of a community health worker delivered health, nutrition and responsive stimulation package and conditional cash transfers on child development and growth in rural Tanzania: protocol for a cluster-randomized trial

Pathways to scale up early childhood programs: A scoping review of Reach Up and Care for Child Development

Evidence-based early childhood development (ECD) programs that strengthen nurturing parenting skills and promote early stimulation, such as Reach Up (RU) and Care for Child Development (CCD), are critical investments for interrupting cycles of intergenerational poverty; however, the implementation impact of these programs varies greatly globally. Analyzing systematically the evidence on the implementation pathways based on contexts (i.e., external and internal influences on intervention implementation), implementation strategies (i.e., mechanisms used to promote program initiation, design, and delivery with existing systems), and implementation outcomes (i.e., related to the implementation goals) can increase the likelihood of implementation success. Our scoping review aimed to identify implementation pathways of RU and CCD programs in low- and middle-income countries. A search in English, Spanish, and Portuguese of grey literature and five databases of peer reviewed literature; from inception through July 16, 2022, yielded 2,267 publications. Using predetermined eligibility criteria, 75 records yielded implementation details for 33 programs across 23 low- and middle-income countries. Two reviewers independently extracted program data on context, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes following a program theory. A thematic analysis identified 37 implementation strategies across six "building blocks of implementation": program emergence, intersectoriality, intervention characteristics, workforce, training, and monitoring systems. Implementation pathways across building blocks are highly influenced by contextual factors, such as infrastructure, social norms, and the target population's demand and interest, which may shape different implementation outcomes. Six 'building blocks' shaping implementation pathways of CCD and RU in LMICs were identified. The careful consideration of context and use of intentional evidence-based planning can enable the successful implementation of ECD nurturing care interventions. We recommend the use of the ECD Implementation Checklist for Enabling Program Scale Up to guide decision-making regarding context and implementation strategies to support implementation outcomes and subsequent ECD program success.

Conditional cash transfers to improve health-focused outcomes: a global scoping review

This scoping review assesses the use of conditional cash transfer (CCT) interventions - direct distribution of money to individuals conditional on their compliance to certain requirements - in randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and large community-based randomised trials with health-focused outcomes. Five databases were searched to identify 68 records published 2004-2021 from 25 countries (8 low- (32%), 5 lower middle- (20%), 6 upper middle- (24%) and 6 high-income (24%), according to the World Bank Categorisation (2017). Forty-six studies were unique (after excluding multiple publications on a single study). The most common outcomes assessed were infectious diseases (30%); maternal health (24%); vaccination rates (17%); and childhood developmental measures (17%). The number of participants receiving CCT in each study ranged from 47 to 5,788, with a median of 487 individuals. The number of total participants ranged from 72 to 14,000, with a median of 1,289 individuals. Fifteen percent of studies involved mobile CCT disbursement. More than a quarter of payments were greater than 50 USD (29%), and most payments were 20 USD or less (58%). Seventy-eight percent of unique full-length studies reported statistically significant CCT effects. Although CCTs remain controversial, a growing evidence base is emerging for their potential impact in specific health conditions.

Effects of a community health worker delivered intervention on maternal depressive symptoms in rural Tanzania

Maternal depression affects one in four women in sub-Saharan Africa, yet evidence on effective and scalable interventions is limited. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of a community health worker (CHW) delivered home visit responsive stimulation, health and nutrition intervention, and conditional cash transfers (CCTs) for antenatal care and child growth monitoring attendance on maternal depressive symptoms. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in 12 villages in rural Ifakara, Tanzania (September 2017 to May 2019). Study villages were randomly assigned to one of three arms: (1) CHW, (2) CHW + CCT and (3) Control. Pregnant women and mothers with a child <12 months were enrolled. Maternal depressive symptoms were assessed using a Tanzanian-adapted version of the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) after 18 months of follow-up. We used linear mixed-effects models to estimate intervention effects on HSCL-25 scores. Results showed that the CHW intervention significantly reduced HSCL-25 scores as compared with control [unadjusted mean difference (MD) −0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.47, −0.15]. The CHW + CCT intervention also appeared to lower HSCL-25 scores (MD −0.17, 95% CI −0.33, −0.01), but results were not statistically significant. Our findings showed that a low-intensity CHW-delivered home visit responsive stimulation, health and nutrition intervention, which did not explicitly aim to improve mental health, reduced maternal depressive symptoms, though the precise mechanisms of action remain unknown. CCTs for antenatal care and child growth monitoring appeared to provide limited to no additional benefit. Community-based integrated interventions that broadly consider maternal and child health, development and well-being have the potential to promote maternal mental health in rural Tanzania and similar settings.

Effect of a home-based health, nutrition and responsive stimulation intervention and conditional cash transfers on child development and growth: a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Tanzania

Introduction

Evidence on the effects of community health worker (CHW) interventions and conditional cash transfers (CCTs) on child growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa remains sparse.

Methods

We conducted a single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial of an integrated home-visiting health, nutrition and responsive stimulation intervention alone and in combination with CCTs to promote antenatal and child clinic attendance from 2017 to 2019 in rural Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Pregnant women and caregivers with a child <1 year of age were enrolled. Twelve villages were randomised to either (1) CHW (n=200 participants), (2) CHW+CCT (n=200) or (3) control (n=193). An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted for the primary trial outcomes of child cognitive, language and motor development assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and child length/height-for-age z-scores (HAZ) at 18 months of follow-up.

Results

The CHW and CHW+CCT interventions had beneficial effects on child cognitive development as compared with control (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24, and SMD: 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.28, respectively). The CHW+CCT intervention also had positive effects on language (SMD: 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.15) and motor (SMD: 0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28) development. Both CHW and CHW+CCT interventions had no effect on HAZ in the primary analysis; however, there were statistically significant positive effects in multivariable analyses. The CHW+CCT group (mean difference: 3.0 visits, 95% CI 2.1 to 4.0) and the CHW group (mean difference: 1.5 visits, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.5) attended greater number of child health and growth monitoring clinic visits as compared to the control group.

Conclusion

Integrated CHW home-visiting interventions can improve child cognitive development and may have positive effects on linear growth. Combining CHW with CCT may provide additional benefits on clinic visit attendance and selected child development outcomes.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN10323949.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.