| Literature DB >> 35136598 |
Nina Sokolovic1, Alessandra Schneider1, Michal Perlman1, Rosângela Sousa2, Jennifer M Jenkins1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home-visiting programs are a common and effective public health approach to promoting parent and child well-being, including in low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization and UNICEF have identified responsive caregiving as one key component of the nurturing care children need to survive and thrive. Nonetheless, the importance of responsive caregiving and how to coach it is often overlooked in trainings for staff in home-visiting programs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35136598 PMCID: PMC8818297 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.12.04007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Glob Health ISSN: 2047-2978 Impact factor: 4.413
Participant characteristics by group
| Intervention group (N = 91), N (%) | Control group (N = 90), N (%) | Difference test, | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 81 (89%) | 80 (89%) | <0.001 (0.98) |
| Supervisor | 27 (30%) | 28 (31%) | 0.04 (0.83) |
| Work full-time (40h/week) | 69 (78%) | 74 (83%) | 0.64 (0.42) |
| Prior training in home visiting | 82 (90%) | 76 (84%) | 1.31 (0.25) |
| Age: | |||
| <20 y | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 2.99 (0.39) |
| 20-29 y | 34 (37%) | 26 (29%) |
|
| 30-39 y | 34 (37%) | 45 (50%) |
|
| 40+ years | 22 (24%) | 18 (20%) |
|
| Education: | |||
| High school diploma or less | 28 (31%) | 28 (31%) | 1.09 (0.78) |
| Some university | 13 (14%) | 10 (11%) |
|
| University diploma | 37 (41%) | 42 (47%) |
|
| Post-university studies | 13 (14%) | 10 (11%) |
|
| Experience working with children (years): | |||
| <1 | 2 (2%) | 4 (5%) | 0.70 (0.70) |
| 1-2 | 20 (24%) | 19 (23%) |
|
| 3+ | 62 (74%) | 61 (73%) | |
Course outline: Learning goals and example activities
| Learning goals | Example activities |
|---|---|
| Module 1: What are responsive interactions for learning? | |
| • Understands what responsive interactions looks like | • Compare and contrast videos of responsive vs unresponsive parent-child interactions |
| • Able to identify responsive vs unresponsive behaviors | • Pause videos of parent-child interactions to highlight specific (un)responsive behaviors |
| • Understands how responsive interactions support children’s development | • Discuss key findings from research about the benefits of responsivity |
| Module 2: Taking children’s perspectives | |
| • Able to watch a child and identify: (1) what mood a child is in; (2) where a child is looking; (3) what a child is thinking and; (4) the child’s developmental level (eg, motor skills, language) | • Watch videos of children playing and pause to analyze and explain children’s behavior |
| · | • Practice taking children’s perspective and commenting on what they might be looking at or thinking about during a home-visit |
| • Gives examples of parent behaviors that would help expand a child’s learning and development in a given moment | • Watch videos of parent-child interactions, identify missed opportunities, and offer suggestions for how to improve the quality of the interactions based on child’s interest/needs/developmental level |
| Module 3: Coaching parents | |
| • Understands the importance of being responsive to parents during home visits | • Compare and contrast videos of home-visitors who are responsive vs unresponsive to parents’ needs |
| • Knows effective coaching strategies (ie, praise, broadcasting, modeling) | • Watch videos of home-visiting interactions and offer suggestions for how to coach the parent to have more responsive interactions
• Role play to practice using coaching strategies |
| • Understands the importance of involving other family members so that they too learn to be more responsive | • Discuss and practice using strategies for involving other family members (eg, siblings, fathers) in home visits |
| Module 4: Working as a team | |
| • Helps parents set and track goals | • Practice setting goals based on video examples and role plays |
| • Understands the importance of being responsive to colleagues | • Compare and contrast videos of responsive vs unresponsive supervisors |
| • Supports colleagues in implementing course lessons | • Define shared goals for the team and make a plan for implementation and tracking |
Figure 1Post-course mean scores by intervention group with standard errors. The first seven outcomes (from the interview) were rated on scales with a maximum of 2; the last two outcomes were rated on 5-point Likert scales.
Intervention effects*
| Effect size | 95% confidence interval | Adjusted | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Socioemotional benefits of responsivity | 1.88 | (1.00, 3.50) | 0.05 | 0.07 |
| Cognitive benefits of responsivity | 2.57 | (1.15, 5.71) | 0.02 | 0.04 |
| Setting goals | 1.80 | (0.87, 3.69) | 0.11 | 0.14 |
| Tracking goal implementation | 3.20 | (1.28, 7.99) | 0.01 | 0.04 |
| Monitoring progress | 0.95 | (0.47, 1.92) | 0.88 | 0.88 |
|
| ||||
| Identifying (un) responsive behaviors | 1.86 | (1.51, 2.21) | <0.001 | 0.004 |
| Coaching responsivity | 0.51 | (0.21, 0.80) | 0.02 |
|
| Importance of following children’s lead | 0.64 | (0.34, 0.94) | <0.001 | 0.009 |
| Perspective taking | -0.03 | (-0.32, 0.27) | 0.85 | 0.95 |
*Effect size is odds ratio (OR) for ordinal outcomes and Cohen’s d for continuous outcomes.