RESUMEN
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 R2 of 5.3% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.62 (95% CI = 0.60, 0.64). External validation showed consistent results. We also provided an online screening tool using parental schooling data to support programme's targeting. PIM coverage during pregnancy was low, but the focus was adequate, especially among families with longer enrolment, indicating families most in need received higher dosage. 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.
Asunto(s)
Desarrollo Infantil , Humanos , Femenino , Brasil , Embarazo , Preescolar , Estudios Prospectivos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Adulto , Tamizaje Masivo , Factores de Riesgo , Masculino , Mujeres Embarazadas/psicologíaRESUMEN
Partnership between early childhood development interventions and primary health care services can help catalyse health care uptake by socially vulnerable families. This study aimed to assess the real-life effects of a large-scale home visiting programme [Primeira Infância Melhor (PIM)] in Brazil on the use of preventive (prenatal visits, well child visits, dentist visits and vaccination) and recovery (emergency room visits and hospitalization) health services. A quasi-experiment nested in a population-based birth cohort study was conducted. The intervention group was firstly defined as all children enrolled in PIM up to age 6 months, and afterwards stratified between those enrolled during pregnancy or after birth up to 6 months. Children receiving PIM were matched with controls on propensity scores based on 27 confounders to estimate effects on health service use from prenatal to age 2 years. Double adjustment was applied in outcome Quasi-Poisson regressions. No evidence was found for effects of PIM starting anytime up to 6 months (262 pairs), or for the children enrolled only after birth (133 pairs), on outcomes occurring after age 6 months. When the programme started during pregnancy (129 pairs), there was a 13% higher prevalence of adequate prenatal visits (prevalence ratio = 1.13; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.27), but no effect on use of any other health service. Sensitivity analyses suggested longer participation in the programme with reduced visitor turnover might improve its impact on prenatal visits. Integration between PIM and primary health care was not adequate to affect overall patterns of contacts with health services. Nevertheless, prenatal home visits showed potential to increase health service contact during a sensitive period of development, indicating the need to start such programmes before birth, when there is more time for maternal care, and family engagement in a network of services is facilitated.
Asunto(s)
Desarrollo Infantil , Servicios de Salud Materna , Embarazo , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Preescolar , Lactante , Brasil , Estudios de Cohortes , Atención Prenatal , Visita DomiciliariaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The scale-up of parenting programmes to support early childhood development (ECD) is poorly understood. Little is known about how and when early interventions are most effective. Sustainability of ECD programming requires a better understanding of the mechanisms of real-world interventions. We examined the effects on caregiving practices of Primeira Infância Melhor (PIM), a state-wide home-visiting programme in Brazil. METHODS: This propensity score matched, longitudinal, quasiexperimental study uses data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort. We matched children who received PIM at any age with other cohort children on 25 key covariates. Sensitivity, guidance and responsiveness were assessed using video-recorded play tasks. Coerciveness and the parent-child relationship were assessed using the Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales. All parenting outcomes were examined at age 4 years. Separate moderation analyses were conducted for each effect modifier: family income, child age and duration of participation. RESULTS: Out of 4275 children in the cohort, 797 were enrolled in PIM up to age 4 years. 3018 children (70.6%) were included in the analytic sample, of whom 587 received PIM and 2431 were potential controls. We found a positive effect of PIM on responsiveness (ß=0.08, 95% CIs 0.002 to 0.16) and sensitivity (ß=0.10, 95% CIs 0.02 to 0.19). No effect was found for any secondary outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed a stronger positive effect on sensitivity for low-income parents (ß=0.18, 95% CIs 0.03 to 0.34). CONCLUSION: A state-wide, home-visiting programme in Brazil improved aspects of responsive caregiving. Effects were more pronounced for low-income families, suggesting benefits of purposeful targeting.
Asunto(s)
Desarrollo Infantil , Responsabilidad Parental , Humanos , Preescolar , Brasil , PobrezaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A large-scale parenting programme with weekly home visits (Primeira Infância Melhor (PIM)) has been implemented in the south of Brazil for nearly two decades, but lacks evaluation of its effects on early childhood development (ECD). This quasi-experimental study aimed to assess the effects of PIM in real-life settings within a population-based birth cohort study. METHODS: Data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort Study and the state programme information system were linked to identify study children who received PIM. Propensity score matching was used to create a comparable control group (using one-to-one matching) to estimate the effect of PIM on ECD measured at age 4 years. First, the impact of any enrolment in PIM was evaluated; then the intervention group was stratified according to whether enrolment occurred during pregnancy or after birth. Double adjustment was applied in linear regression to analyse child development scores, and Poisson regression for delayed development (below the 10th percentile of whole cohort). Effect modification due to family income was explored. RESULTS: There was no evidence that any enrolment in PIM (601 pairs) by age 4 years was associated with child development. However, PIM starting during pregnancy (estimated for 121 pairs) predicted higher development scores (0.27 SD; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.52), and 71% lower prevalence of delayed development (prevalence ratio=0.29; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69), compared with the control group. There was strong statistical evidence (p=0.003, test of interaction) that the effect of PIM starting in pregnancy was larger than when starting after birth (480 pairs). The effect of PIM starting during pregnancy was found to be restricted to poorer families. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-life setting, PIM was effective only when starting during pregnancy and only for poorer families. A higher-quality programme might be more effective with a broader population.