There is little evidence on optimizing the effectiveness and implementation of evidence-based early childhood development (ECD) interventions when task-shifted to frontline workers. In this Methods Forum paper, we describe our adaptation of the International Guide for Monitoring Child Development (GMCD) for task-shifting to frontline workers in Guatemala and India. In 2021-2022, implementers, trainers, frontline workers, caregivers, and international GMCD experts collaborated to adapt the GMCD for a task shifted implementation by frontline workers. We used an eight-step co-creating process: assembling a multidisciplinary team, training on the existing package, working groups to begin modifications, revision of draft modifications, tailoring of visual materials and language, train-the-trainers activities, pilot frontline worker trainings, final review and feedback. Preliminary effectiveness of adaptations was evaluated through narrative notes and group-based qualitative feedback following pilot trainings with 16 frontline workers in India and 6 in Guatemala. Final adaptations included: refining training techniques to match skill levels and learning styles of frontline workers; tailoring all visual materials to local languages and contexts; design of job aids for providing developmental support messages; modification of referral and triage processes for children in need of enhanced support and speciality referral; and creation of post-training support procedures. Feedback from pilot trainings included: (1) group consensus that training improved ECD skills and knowledge across multiple domains; and (2) feedback on ongoing needed adjustments to pacing, use of video-based vs. role-playing materials, and time allocated to small group work. We use the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) framework to document our adaptations. The co-creating approach we use, as well as systematic documentation of adaptation decisions will be of use to other community-based early childhood interventions and implementation strategies.
Main findings: The International Guide for Monitoring Child Development, an early childhood development support and monitoring tool, was successfully adapted for use by frontline workers in rural India and Guatemala.Added knowledge: Our Methods Forum paper uses a detailed framework to document the collaborative, co-creating process used and the adaptive decisions taken.Global health impact for policy and action: Evidence on how best to adapt and optimize early childhood interventions for frontline workers will be useful or scaling up support for children globally.
Child Development , Humans , Guatemala , India , Child, Preschool , Community Health Workers/education , Community Health Workers/organization & administration , Infant
OBJECTIVES: To compare the difference between the growth and developmental status of the children who were residing in the area where Inclusive Early Childhood Development (IECD) project was being implemented and who had received interventions through trained Anganwadi workers (Frontline workers) under Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme with the children who had not received the Inclusive ECD project interventions. METHODS: It was a mixed method cohort study, nested in an ongoing project in a medical college in which Inclusive ECD was used as an intervention through International Guide for Monitoring Child Development (GMCD) which is a tool for both monitoring and assessment with the help of existing government structures and personnel such as Anganwadi workers, Anganwadi supervisors and their contact points with communities. A sample of 200 children was selected; 100 each from intervention group (IECD cohort) and comparison group (Usual care cohort) and were followed till the child became 2 y of age. RESULTS: IECD intervention showed statistically significant effect on weight (p = 0.04) and height (p = 0.03) of the IECD cohort. Overall developmental assessment showed that the identified developmental issues (Concerns + Delays) were approximately half in IECD cohort (9.67% + 5.37% = 15.04%) as compared to usual care cohort (17.20% + 11.82% = 29.02%). The results from binomial logistic regression performed for developmental outcomes were statistically significant (p = 0.04) suggesting that children with IECD intervention have lower odds of developing developmental issues. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that it is possible to implement IECD interventions through frontline workers, which significantly improves the growth and development of the children.
