Cognitive, psychosocial, and behaviour gains at age 31 years from the Jamaica early childhood stimulation trial.
Saved in:
| Title: | Cognitive, psychosocial, and behaviour gains at age 31 years from the Jamaica early childhood stimulation trial. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Walker, Susan P., Chang, Susan M., Wright, Amika S., Pinto, Rodrigo, Heckman, James J., Grantham‐McGregor, Sally M. |
| Source: | Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. Jun2022, Vol. 63 Issue 6, p626-635. 10p. 1 Diagram, 3 Charts, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Confidence intervals, Cognition, Behavior, Descriptive statistics, Social skills |
| Abstract: | Background: There is little evidence on adult benefits from early childhood interventions in low and middle‐income countries. We assessed adult cognition, psychosocial skills and behaviour from a stimulation trial conducted in Jamaica. Methods: Children with stunted growth (height‐for age <−2SD of references) aged 9–24 months were enrolled in a two‐year randomised‐controlled trial of nutritional supplementation and/or stimulation. At mean age 31.79 (SD 0.40) years, 95 of 127 participants (74.8%; 53.7% male) were assessed. Children without stunted growth were also followed as a comparison group (64 of 84 participants, 76.2%). Measurements included IQ, executive function, mental health, psychosocial skills, personality traits and risk behaviours. A block permutation test, valid for small sample sizes, was used. Analyses accounted for the randomisation protocol, multiple hypothesis testing and attrition. Results: Treatment group participants (stimulation intervention with or without supplementation, n = 48) had significantly greater IQ (Hedges g effect size 0. 57; 95%CI 0.20, 0.95) and cognitive flexibility (0.61; 0.25, 0.98) compared with no‐treatment (no‐intervention and supplementation only, n = 47). They also had reduced depressive symptoms (0.61; 0.28, 1.00), increased grit (0.53; 0.16, 0.92) and conscientiousness (0.66; 0.31, 1.07), lower substance use (rank mean score, 0.45; 0.08, 0.81) and risk taking related to health and work (0.64; 0.27, 1.00). There were 18 significant outcomes of 33 assessed. Comparison participants had higher IQ than no‐treatment (1.17; 0.81, 1.54) and treatment groups (0.62; 0.18, 1.07); and better executive function, lower social inhibition and risk taking than the no‐treatment group. Conclusions: The wide‐ranging benefits at 31 years from the stimulation intervention supports investment in larger scale programmes to promote early childhood development in disadvantaged children. The lower IQ in the treatment group compared with comparison participants, emphasises the need for continued efforts to prevent early childhood growth retardation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: There is little evidence on adult benefits from early childhood interventions in low and middle‐income countries. We assessed adult cognition, psychosocial skills and behaviour from a stimulation trial conducted in Jamaica. Methods: Children with stunted growth (height‐for age <−2SD of references) aged 9–24 months were enrolled in a two‐year randomised‐controlled trial of nutritional supplementation and/or stimulation. At mean age 31.79 (SD 0.40) years, 95 of 127 participants (74.8%; 53.7% male) were assessed. Children without stunted growth were also followed as a comparison group (64 of 84 participants, 76.2%). Measurements included IQ, executive function, mental health, psychosocial skills, personality traits and risk behaviours. A block permutation test, valid for small sample sizes, was used. Analyses accounted for the randomisation protocol, multiple hypothesis testing and attrition. Results: Treatment group participants (stimulation intervention with or without supplementation, n = 48) had significantly greater IQ (Hedges g effect size 0. 57; 95%CI 0.20, 0.95) and cognitive flexibility (0.61; 0.25, 0.98) compared with no‐treatment (no‐intervention and supplementation only, n = 47). They also had reduced depressive symptoms (0.61; 0.28, 1.00), increased grit (0.53; 0.16, 0.92) and conscientiousness (0.66; 0.31, 1.07), lower substance use (rank mean score, 0.45; 0.08, 0.81) and risk taking related to health and work (0.64; 0.27, 1.00). There were 18 significant outcomes of 33 assessed. Comparison participants had higher IQ than no‐treatment (1.17; 0.81, 1.54) and treatment groups (0.62; 0.18, 1.07); and better executive function, lower social inhibition and risk taking than the no‐treatment group. Conclusions: The wide‐ranging benefits at 31 years from the stimulation intervention supports investment in larger scale programmes to promote early childhood development in disadvantaged children. The lower IQ in the treatment group compared with comparison participants, emphasises the need for continued efforts to prevent early childhood growth retardation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00219630 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/jcpp.13499 |
