BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence is needed on effective approaches to build parents' ability to promote child development feasible in low- and middle-income countries. Our objective was to synthesize impact of the Reach Up early childhood parenting program in several low- and middle-income countries and examine moderation by family and implementation characteristics.
METHODS: Systematic search using PubMed and Academic Search Elite/EBSCO Host. Randomized controlled trials of the Reach Up program from 1985 to February 2022 were selected. Data were extracted by 2 independent researchers. Primary outcomes were child cognitive, language, and motor development. Secondary outcomes were home stimulation and maternal depressive symptoms. We synthesized pooled effect sizes using random effect inverse-variance weighting and effect modification by testing pooled subgroup effect estimates using the χ2 test for heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Average effect size across 18 studies ranged from 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.66) for cognition, 0.38 (CI 0.24 to 0.51) for language, 0.27 (CI 0.13 to 0.40) for motor development, 0.37 (CI 0.21 to 0.54) for home stimulation, and -0.09 (CI -0.19 to 0.01) for maternal depressive symptoms. Impacts were larger in studies targeted to undernourished children, with mean enrollment older than age 12 months and intervention duration 6 to 12 months. Quality of evidence assessed with the Cochrane Assessment of Risk of Bias and GRADE system was moderate. Instruments used to assess child development varied. In moderator analyses, some subgroups included few studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Reach Up benefits child development and home stimulation and is adaptable across cultures and delivery methods. Child and implementation characteristics modified the effects, with implications for scaling.
BACKGROUND: There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe types of breastfeeding support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. 2. To examine the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding support interventions in terms of whether they offered only breastfeeding support or breastfeeding support in combination with a wider maternal and child health intervention ('breastfeeding plus' support). 3. To examine the effectiveness of the following intervention characteristics on breastfeeding support: a. type of support (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, digital technologies, group or individual support, proactive or reactive); b. intensity of support (i.e. number of postnatal contacts); c. person delivering the intervention (e.g. healthcare professional, lay person); d. to examine whether the impact of support varied between high- and low-and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes results of searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) (11 May 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. Support could be provided face-to-face, over the phone or via digital technologies. All studies had to meet the trustworthiness criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and study trustworthiness. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 116 trials of which 103 contribute data to the analyses. In total more than 98,816 mother-infant pairs were included. Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that 'breastfeeding only' support probably reduced the number of women stopping breastfeeding for all primary outcomes: stopping any breastfeeding at six months (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97); stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93); stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97); and stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Similar findings were reported for the secondary breastfeeding outcomes except for any breastfeeding at two months and 12 months when the evidence was uncertain if 'breastfeeding only' support helped reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding. The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' was less consistent. For primary outcomes there was some evidence that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably reduced the number of women stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, moderate-certainty evidence) or exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90). 'Breastfeeding plus' interventions may have a beneficial effect on reducing the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). The evidence suggests that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably results in little to no difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, moderate-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, it was uncertain if 'breastfeeding plus' support helped reduce the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at any time points. There were no consistent findings emerging from the narrative synthesis of the non-breastfeeding outcomes (maternal satisfaction with care, maternal satisfaction with feeding method, infant morbidity, and maternal mental health), except for a possible reduction of diarrhoea in intervention infants. We considered the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Blinding of participants and personnel is not feasible in such interventions and as studies utilised self-report breastfeeding data, there is also a risk of bias in outcome assessment. We conducted meta-regression to explore substantial heterogeneity for the primary outcomes using the following categories: person providing care; mode of delivery; intensity of support; and income status of country. It is possible that moderate levels (defined as 4-8 visits) of 'breastfeeding only' support may be associated with a more beneficial effect on exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and six months. 'Breastfeeding only' support may also be more effective in reducing women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months compared to women in high-income countries (HICs). However, no other differential effects were found and thus heterogeneity remains largely unexplained. The meta-regression suggested that there were no differential effects regarding person providing support or mode of delivery, however, power was limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When 'breastfeeding only' support is offered to women, the duration and in particular, the exclusivity of breastfeeding is likely to be increased. Support may also be more effective in reducing the number of women stopping breastfeeding at three to four months compared to later time points. For 'breastfeeding plus' interventions the evidence is less certain. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Support can also be offered face-to-face, via telephone or digital technologies, or a combination and may be more effective when delivered on a schedule of four to eight visits. Further work is needed to identify components of the effective interventions and to deliver interventions on a larger scale.
OBJECTIVES: To identify and map existing postnatal educational interventions targeting parents in low and middle-income countries. A secondary objective is to conduct a critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of the educational strategies used for parent-targeted postnatal education. Design & data sources: Using scoping review methodology, MedLine, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched in October 2017.
REVIEW METHODS: All studies published after 2000 reporting on educational interventions that targeted parents from the period of birth to 6 weeks postnatally in low and middle-income countries were included. Studies were excluded if they targeted healthcare professionals or were community interventions that spanned antenatal to postnatal care. Title, abstract and full-text screening was conducted by two reviewers.
RESULTS: We initially identified 9284 articles with 77 articles included after title, abstract and full-text screening. Most of the studies were quantitative (94%) with over half published after 2014. Most studies (61%) targeted a single newborn care education intervention, of which 75% targeted breastfeeding. Interventions used on average three different methods of implementation (e.g., verbal, written information, counselling). Interventions were provided in the hospital (76%), at home (23%), at a clinic/hospital (8%), and/or virtually through an eHealth intervention, including phone or text messages (12%). Maternal outcomes primarily included knowledge, self-efficacy, anxiety and stress while newborn outcomes primarily included exclusive breastfeeding, weight gain at follow-up, and morbidities. Positive changes were found to occur for reported maternal outcomes (89%) and newborn outcomes (56%).
CONCLUSIONS: Parent-targeted education varied in terms of educational topics covered, method and location of intervention, and outcomes examined. While the best strategies of implementing postnatal education interventions to parents in low and middle-income countries is yet to be determined, evidence suggests that current interventions had a positive impact on parents' outcomes using a combined approach. Further work is needed to evaluate the impact on newborn outcomes and to identify the most effective methods and timing of the interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions in children (age <18 y) on growth, non-diarrheal morbidity and mortality in children.
DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and controlled before-after studies.
SETTING: Low- and middle-income countries.
PARTICIPANTS: 41 trials with WASH intervention, incorporating data on 113055 children.
INTERVENTION: Hygiene promotion and education (15 trials); water intervention (10 trials), sanitation improvement (7 trials), all three components of WASH (4 trials), combined water and sanitation (1 trial) and sanitation and hygiene (1 trial).
OUTCOME MEASURES: (i) Anthropometry: weight, height, weight-for-height, mid-arm circumference; (ii) Prevalence of malnutrition; (iii) Non-diarrheal morbidity; and (iv) mortality.
RESULTS: There was no effect of hygiene intervention on most anthropometric parameters (low to very low quality evidence). Hygiene intervention reduced the risk of developing Acute respiratory infections by 24% (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59, 0.98; moderate quality evidence), cough by 10% (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate quality evidence), laboratory-confirmed influenza by 50% (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.41, 0.62; very low quality evidence), fever by 13% (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.74, 1.02; moderate quality evidence), and conjunctivitis by 51% (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.45, 0.55; low quality evidence). There was low quality evidence to suggest no impact of intervention on mortality (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.25, 1.7). Improvement in water supply and quality was associated with slightly higher weight-for-age Z-score (MD 0.03; 95% CI 0, 0.06; low quality evidence), but no significant impact on other anthropometric parameters or infectious morbidity (low to very low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence to suggest reduction in mortality (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25, 0.81). Improvement in sanitation had a variable effect on the anthropometry and infectious morbidity. Combined water, sanitation and hygiene intervention improved height-for-age z scores (MD 0.22; 95% CI 0.12, 0.32) and decreased the risk of stunting by 13% (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81, 0.94) (very low quality of evidence). There was no evidence of significant effect of combined WASH interventions on non-diarrheal morbidity (fever, respiratory infections, intestinal helminth infection and school absenteeism) were not altered by intervention (low to very low quality of evidence). Any WASH intervention (considered together) resulted in lower risk of underweight (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69, 0.96), stunting (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.68, 0.86) and wasting (RR 0.12, 0.85) (low to very low quality of evidence).
CONCLUSION: Available evidence suggests that there may be little or no effect of WASH interventions on the anthropometric indices in children from low- and middle-income countries. There is low to very low quality of evidence to suggest decrease in prevalence of wasting, stunting and underweight. WASH interventions (especially hygiene intervention) were associated with lower risk of non-diarrheal morbidity (very low to moderate quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence to suggest some decrease to no change in mortality. These potential health benefits lend support to the ongoing efforts for provision of safe and adequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene.
BACKGROUND: There are rising rates of multiple births worldwide with associated higher rates of complications and more hospital care, often due to prematurity. While there is strong evidence about the risks of not breastfeeding, rates of breastfeeding in women who have given birth to more than one infant are lower than with singleton births. Breastfeeding more than one infant can be more challenging because of difficulties associated with the birth or prematurity. The extra demands on the mother of frequent suckling, coordinating the needs of more than one infant or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit can lead to delayed initiation or early cessation. Additional options such as breast milk expression, the use of donor milk or different methods of supplementary feeding may be considered. Support and education about breastfeeding has been found to improve the duration of any breastfeeding for healthy term infants and their mothers, however evidence is lacking about interventions that are effective to support women with twins or higher order multiples.
OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness of breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 July 2016), the excluded studies list from the equivalent Cochrane review of singletons, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing extra education or support for women with twins or higher order multiples were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We planned to assess the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach, but were unable to analyse any data.
MAIN RESULTS: We found 10 trials (23 reports) of education and support for breastfeeding that included women with twins or higher order multiples. The quality of evidence was mixed, and the risk of bias was mostly high or unclear. It is difficult to blind women or staff to group allocation for this intervention, so in all studies there was high risk of performance and high or unclear risk of detection bias. Trials recruited 5787 women (this included 512 women interviewed as part of a cluster randomised trial); of these, data were available from two studies for 42 women with twins or higher order multiples. None of the interventions were specifically designed for women with more than one infant, and the outcomes for multiples were not reported separately for each infant. Due to the scarcity of evidence and the format in which data were reported, a narrative description of the data is presented, no analyses are presented in this review, and we were unable to GRADE the evidence.The two trials with data for women with multiple births compared home nurse visits versus usual care (15 women), and telephone peer counselling versus usual care (27 women). The number of women who initiated breastfeeding was reported (all 15 women in one study, 25 out of 27 women in one study). Stopping any breastfeeding before four to six weeks postpartum, stopping exclusive breastfeeding before four to six weeks postpartum, stopping any breastfeeding before six months postpartum andstopping exclusive breastfeeding before six months postpartum were not explicitly reported, and there were insufficient data to draw any meaningful conclusions from survival data. Stopping breast milk expression before four to six weeks postpartum, andstopping breast milk expression before six months postpartum were not reported. Measures ofmaternal satisfaction were reported in one study of 15 women, but there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions; no other secondary outcomes were reported for women with multiple births in either study. No adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials about the effectiveness of breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples, or the most effective way to provide education and support . There was no evidence about the best way to deliver the intervention, the timing of care, or the best person to deliver the care. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered studies of interventions designed for women with twins or higher order multiples to find out what types of education and support are effective in helping these mothers to breastfeed their babies.
AIM: To determine the effectiveness of educational interventions focusing on women and their social network for the promotion of exclusive breastfeeding up tothe age of six months.
BACKGROUND: Despite the advantages of breastfeeding and strategies available for its promotion, early weaning is common worldwide.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.
DATA SOURCES: A search was performed in databases (LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Library), reference lists and grey literature. There was no limitation on the studies' year of publication.
REVIEW METHODS: JBI-MAStARI software were used. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata version 13.0. The effect was estimated by oddsratio with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Of 7201 identified studies, 11 made up the review's corpus. Educational interventions were about twice as effective compared with routine interventions used in the control groups. It was evident that educational interventions have focused only on the woman and have not covered all five types of support she needs to breastfeed.
CONCLUSION: Educational interventions were about twice as effective in promoting exclusive breastfeeding at six months of age. There is a need for further studies applying interventions that address women and their social network from the prenatal period, considering all types of support. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Background: Improving breastfeeding rates is critical. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), only subtle improvements in breastfeeding rates have been observed over the past decade, which highlights the need for accelerating breastfeeding promotion interventions.Objectives: The objective of this article is to update evidence on the effect of interventions on early initiation of and exclusive (<1 and 1-5 mo) and continued (6-23 mo) breastfeeding rates in LMICs when delivered in health systems, in the home or in community environments, or in a combination of settings.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and CABI databases to identify new articles relevant to our current review, which were published after the search date of our earlier meta-analysis (October 2014). Nine new articles were found to be relevant and were included, in addition to the other 52 studies that were identified in our earlier meta-analysis. We reported the pooled ORs and corresponding 95% CIs as our outcome estimates. In cases of high heterogeneity, random-effects models were used and causes were explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.Results: Early initiation of and exclusive (<1 and 1-5 mo) and continued (6-23 mo) breastfeeding rates in LMICs improved significantly as a result of interventions delivered in health systems, in the home or community, or a combination of these. Interventions delivered concurrently in a combination of settings were found to show the largest improvements in desired breastfeeding outcomes. Counseling provided in any setting and baby-friendly support in health systems appear to be the most effective interventions to improve breastfeeding.Conclusions: Improvements in breastfeeding practices are possible in LMICs with judicious use of tested interventions, particularly when delivered in a combination of settings concurrently. The findings can be considered for inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool model.
BACKGROUND: The Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding outline maternity practices that protect, promote, and support breastfeeding and serve as the foundation for the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative. Research aim: This systematic review describes interventions related to Step 3 of the Ten Steps, which involves informing pregnant women about the benefits and management of breastfeeding. Our main objective was to determine whether prenatal clinic- or hospital-based breastfeeding education increases breastfeeding initiation, duration, or exclusivity.
METHODS: The electronic databases MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed manuscripts published in English between January 1, 2000, and May 5, 2016. Bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews were also screened to identify potential studies.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included. The research studies were either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies conducted in developed or developing countries. Findings suggest that prenatal interventions, delivered alone or in combination with intrapartum and/or postpartum components, are effective at increasing breastfeeding initiation, duration, or exclusivity where they combine both education and interpersonal support and where women's partners or family are involved. However, varying study quality and lack of standardized assessment of participants' breastfeeding intentions limited the ability to recommend any single intervention as most effective.
CONCLUSION: Future studies should test the strength of maternal breastfeeding intentions, assess the role of family members in influencing breastfeeding outcomes, compare the effectiveness of different health care providers, and include more explicit detail about the time and full cost of different interventions.
Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of community health worker interventions is pertinent for decision-makers and programme planners who are turning to community services in order to strengthen health systems in the context of the momentum generated by strategies to support universal health care, the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal agenda.We conducted a systematic review of published economic evaluation studies of community health worker interventions aimed at improving child health outcomes. Four public health and economic evaluation databases were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria: National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Cochrane, Paediatric Economic Evaluation Database (PEED), and PubMed. The search strategy was tailored to each database.The 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria were conducted in either high income countries (HIC), low- income countries (LIC) and/or middle-income countries (MIC). The economic evaluations covered a wide range of interventions. Studies were grouped together by intended outcome or objective of each study. The data varied in quality. We found evidence of cost-effectiveness of community health worker (CHW) interventions in reducing malaria and asthma, decreasing mortality of neonates and children, improving maternal health, increasing exclusive breastfeeding and improving malnutrition, and positively impacting physical health and psychomotor development amongst children.Studies measured varied outcomes, due to the heterogeneous nature of studies included; a meta-analysis was not conducted. Outcomes included disease- or condition -specific outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and generic measures (e.g. disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)). Nonetheless, all 19 interventions were found to be either cost-effective or highly cost-effective at a threshold specific to their respective countries.There is a growing body of economic evaluation literature on cost-effectiveness of CHW interventions. However, this is largely for small scale and vertical programmes. There is a need for economic evaluations of larger and integrated CHW programmes in order to achieve the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal agenda so that appropriate resources can be allocated to this subset of human resources for health. This is the first systematic review to assess the cost-effectiveness of community health workers in delivering child health interventions.
BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage is widely endorsed as the pivotal goal in global health, however substantial barriers to accessing health services for children in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) exist. Failure to access healthcare is an important contributor to child mortality in these settings. Barriers to access have been widely studied, however effective interventions to overcome barriers and increase access to services for children are less well documented.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children aged 5 years and below in LMIC. Four databases (EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO) were searched in January 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: health care utilisation; immunisation uptake; and compliance with medication or referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled study designs were included in the review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.
RESULTS: Fifty seven studies were included in the review. Approximately half of studies (49%) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most studies were randomised controlled trials (n = 44; 77%) with the remaining studies employing non-randomised designs. Very few studies were judged as high quality. Studies evaluated a diverse range of interventions and various outcomes. Supply side interventions included: delivery of services at or closer to home and service level improvements (eg. integration of services). Demand side interventions included: educational programmes, text messages, and financial or other incentives. Interventions that delivered services at or closer to home and text messages were in general associated with a significant improvement in relevant outcomes. A consistent pattern was not noted for the remaining studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This review fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence of the range and effectiveness of interventions that can be used to increase access for children aged ≤5 years in LMIC. It highlights some intervention areas that seem to show encouraging trends including text message reminders and delivery of services at or close to home. However, given the methodological limitations found in existing studies, the results of this review must be interpreted with caution.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420160334200.
Evidence is needed on effective approaches to build parents' ability to promote child development feasible in low- and middle-income countries. Our objective was to synthesize impact of the Reach Up early childhood parenting program in several low- and middle-income countries and examine moderation by family and implementation characteristics.
METHODS:
Systematic search using PubMed and Academic Search Elite/EBSCO Host. Randomized controlled trials of the Reach Up program from 1985 to February 2022 were selected. Data were extracted by 2 independent researchers. Primary outcomes were child cognitive, language, and motor development. Secondary outcomes were home stimulation and maternal depressive symptoms. We synthesized pooled effect sizes using random effect inverse-variance weighting and effect modification by testing pooled subgroup effect estimates using the χ2 test for heterogeneity.
RESULTS:
Average effect size across 18 studies ranged from 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.66) for cognition, 0.38 (CI 0.24 to 0.51) for language, 0.27 (CI 0.13 to 0.40) for motor development, 0.37 (CI 0.21 to 0.54) for home stimulation, and -0.09 (CI -0.19 to 0.01) for maternal depressive symptoms. Impacts were larger in studies targeted to undernourished children, with mean enrollment older than age 12 months and intervention duration 6 to 12 months. Quality of evidence assessed with the Cochrane Assessment of Risk of Bias and GRADE system was moderate. Instruments used to assess child development varied. In moderator analyses, some subgroups included few studies.
CONCLUSIONS:
Reach Up benefits child development and home stimulation and is adaptable across cultures and delivery methods. Child and implementation characteristics modified the effects, with implications for scaling.
