METHODS: We conducted a 9-month, parallel, multiarm, cluster-randomised controlled trial in 31 rural villages in Kishoreganj District, Bangladesh. Villages were randomly allocated to: group sessions ('group'); alternating groups and home visits ('combined'); or a passive control arm. Sessions were delivered fortnightly by trained community members. The primary outcome was child stimulation (Family Care Indicators); the secondary outcome was child development (Ages and Stages Questionnaire Inventory, ASQi). Other outcomes included dietary diversity, latrine status, use of a child potty, handwashing infrastructure, caregiver mental health and knowledge of lead. Analyses were intention to treat. Data collectors were independent from implementers.
RESULTS: In July-August 2017, 621 pregnant women and primary caregivers of children<15 months were enrolled (group n=160, combined n=160, control n=301). At endline, immediately following intervention completion (July-August 2018), 574 participants were assessed (group n=144, combined n=149, control n=281). Primary caregivers in both intervention arms participated in more play activities than control caregivers (age-adjusted means: group 4.22, 95% CI 3.97 to 4.47; combined 4.77, 4.60 to 4.96; control 3.24, 3.05 to 3.39), and provided a larger variety of play materials (age-adjusted means: group 3.63, 3.31 to 3.96; combined 3.81, 3.62 to 3.99; control 2.48, 2.34 to 2.59). Compared with the control arm, children in the group arm had higher total ASQi scores (adjusted mean difference in standardised scores: 0.39, 0.15 to 0.64), while in the combined arm scores were not significantly different from the control (0.25, -0.07 to 0.54).
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that group-based, multicomponent interventions can be effective at improving child development outcomes in rural Bangladesh, and that they have the potential to be delivered at scale.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered in ISRCTN (ISRCTN16001234).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The valuation composed of 30 subjects with aggressive periodontal disease and 30 healthy controls. Clinical assessment included following periodontal parameters: plaque index (PI), papillary bleeding index (PBI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Levels of bone loss were assessed by taking full-mouth periapical radiographs. Initial periodontal therapy comprises of full-mouth disinfection which includes subgingival scaling and root planing within 24 hours combined with adjunctive chlorhexidine chemotherapy for aggressive periodontitis subject's at sites indicated. The parameters (clinical) were evaluated at the baseline and 8 weeks after initial periodontal therapy at six sites of teeth indicated. Plasma samples were taken and evaluated by standard procedures as defined in the literature. All the values were weighed and related.
RESULTS: Strong positive associations were detected among periodontal parameters and TBARS, enzymatic/nonenzymatic AO levels (p < 0.05), and pre- and postperiodontal management. The plasma levels of patients with aggressive periodontitis had high levels of TBARS and displayed a substantial escalation in the activities of GSH and GPX levels in the plasma matched to the healthy individuals (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: This paper evaluated ROS activity and AO defense before and after treatment to stimulate added periodontal investigation in this part which will give an insight into the therapeutic options with foreseeable results.
METHOD: A pre-school was provided with an interactive hand hygiene application for two months. The device features an online administrator dashboard for data collection and for monitoring the children's hand washing steps and duration. A good hand washing is defined as hand washing which comprise all of the steps outlined in the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
RESULTS: The prototype managed to capture 6882 hand wash performed with an average of 20.85 seconds per hand wash. Washing hands palm to palm was the most frequent (79.9%) step performed, whereas scrubbing fingernails and wrists were the least (56%) steps performed.
CONCLUSIONS: The device is a good prototype to educate, stimulate and monitor good hand hygiene practices. However, other measures should be undertaken to ensure sustainability of the practices.