Search

IntroductionAlmost 250 million children fail to achieve their full growth or developmental potential, trapping them in a cycle of continuing disadvantage. Strong evidence exists that parent-focussed face to face interventions can improve developmental outcomes; the challenge is delivering these on a wide scale. SPRING (Sustainable Programme Incorporating Nutrition and Games) aimed to address this by developing a feasible affordable programme of monthly home visits by community-based workers (CWs) and testing two different delivery models at scale in a programmatic setting. In Pakistan, SPRING was embedded into existing monthly home visits of Lady Health Workers (LHWs). In India, it was delivered by a civil society/non-governmental organisation (CSO/NGO) that trained a new cadre of CWs.MethodsThe SPRING interventions were evaluated through parallel cluster randomised trials. In Pakistan, clusters were 20 Union Councils (UCs), and in India, the catchment areas of 24 health sub-centres. Trial participants were mother-baby dyads of live born babies recruited through surveillance systems of 2 monthly home visits. Primary outcomes were BSID-III composite scores for psychomotor, cognitive and language development plus height for age z-score (HAZ), assessed at 18 months of age. Analyses were by intention to treat.Results1,443 children in India were assessed at age 18 months and 1,016 in Pakistan. There was no impact in either setting on ECD outcomes or growth. The percentage of children in the SPRING intervention group who were receiving diets at 12 months of age that met the WHO minimum acceptable criteria was 35% higher in India (95% CI: 4–75%, p = 0.023) and 45% higher in Pakistan (95% CI: 15–83%, p = 0.002) compared to children in the control groups.DiscussionThe lack of impact is explained by shortcomings in implementation factors. Important lessons were learnt. Integrating additional tasks into the already overloaded workload of CWs is unlikely to be successful without additional resources and re-organisation of their goals to include the new tasks. The NGO model is the most likely for scale-up as few countries have established infrastructures like the LHW programme. It will require careful attention to the establishment of strong administrative and management systems to support its implementation.

IntroductionIn the last decade, there has been increased global policy and program momentum to promote early childhood development. The Care for Child Development (CCD) package, developed by UNICEF and the WHO, is a key tool responding to the global demand. The CCD package comprises two age-specific evidence-based recommendations for caregivers to 1) play and communicate and 2) responsively interact with their children (0–5 years) and was designed to be integrated within existing services to strengthen nurturing care for child development. The aim of this report was to provide an up-to-date global review of the implementation and evaluation of the CCD package.MethodsIn addition to a systematic review of 55 reports, we interviewed 23 key informants (including UNICEF and WHO personnel) to better understand the implementation of CCD.ResultsThe CCD package has been or is being implemented in 54 low- and middle-income countries and territories, and it has been integrated into government services across the health, social, and education sectors in 26 countries. Across these contexts, CCD has been adapted in three primary ways: 1) translations of CCD materials (mostly counseling cards) into local language(s), 2) adaptations of CCD materials for the local context, vulnerable children, or a humanitarian/emergency setting (e.g., including local play activities, using activities that are better suited to children with visual impairments), and 3) substantive modifications to the content of CCD materials (e.g., expansion of play and communication activities, addition of new themes, creation of a structured curriculum). While there is promising evidence and examples of good implementation practice, there has been mixed experience about implementation of CCD with respect to adaptation, training, supervision, integration into existing services, and monitoring implementation fidelity and quality. For example, many users of CCD found difficulties with training the workforce, garnering buy-in from governments, and ensuring benefits for families, among others.DiscussionAdditional knowledge on how to improve the effectiveness, implementation fidelity and quality, and acceptance of CCD is needed. Based on the findings of the review we make recommendations for future efforts to implement CCD at-scale.