Search

Violence is a major public health problem globally, with the highest rates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the Americas and southern Africa. Parenting programmes in high-income countries can diminish risk for violence, by reducing risk factors such as child aggression and harsh parenting, and increasing protective factors such as child cognitive development and school readiness. However, there is critical need to identify low-cost programmes with replicable benefits that work in real-world LMICs contexts. A three-arm, randomised, single-blind trial evaluated effects of two low-cost, group-based parenting programmes recommended for LMICs (ACT: Raising Safe Kids; DBS: dialogic book-sharing) on child aggression (primary outcome), child development, parenting, maltreatment, and stress. Participants were 369 children with medium-high levels of aggression (mean age 3.1 years at baseline) in poor households. Interventions were implemented in city health and education services in southern Brazil. Maternal reports, filmed observations, child tasks, and hair cortisol were assessed at baseline, 1-month post-intervention, and 8-month follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses compared each of ACT and DBS with a control group. Three hundred sixty-eight (99.7%) participants completed follow-up assessments 8 months after the interventions. There was no effect of ACT (standardised mean difference, SMD 0.11, 95% CI - 0.05, 0.27) or DBS (SMD 0.05, 95% CI - 0.11, 0.21) on the primary outcome of child aggression. ACT reduced harsh parenting behaviour post-intervention (SMD - 0.23; 95% CI - 0.46, 0.01), but not at follow-up. DBS improved book-sharing practices at both time points (e.g., maternal sensitivity at follow-up SMD 0.33; 95% CI 0.08, 0.57). There were no benefits of either programme for other parenting, child development, or stress outcomes. Two parenting programmes in Brazil had small effects on parenting practices but did not reduce child aggression or several other important risk/protective factors for violence. Effective early interventions that reduce violence in real-world LMIC settings are highly desirable but may be challenging to achieve.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial., Methods/design: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping., Discussion: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.