Iron deficiency anemia, the largest cause of anemia worldwide, adversely affects cognitive development in children. Moreover, the imperceptible childhood anemia prevalence reduction in response to anemia control measures is associated with tremendous social and economic cost.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of community-based parental education/counseling when combined with usual treatment on children's anemia cure rate. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial in children aged 12 to 59 months from 55 villages from the rural Chamrajnagar district in southern India was conducted between November 2014 and July 2015; 6-month follow-up ended in January 2016. Villages were randomly assigned to either usual treatment (n = 27) or to the intervention (n = 28). Among 1144 participating children, 534 were diagnosed as having anemia (hemoglobin levels <11 g/dL and >7.9 g/dL; to convert to grams per liter, multiply by 10) and constituted the study sample in this analysis. Data were analyzed between July 2016 and September 2017. INTERVENTIONS Iron and folic acid (IFA), 20 mg/d, 5 times daily per week, for 5 months (usual treatment) or health worker-delivered education/counseling combined with usual treatment (intervention). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was anemia cure rate defined as hemoglobin level at or greater than 11 g/dL during follow-up. RESULTSOf the children included in the study, the mean age was 30 months, with a slightly higher ratio of boys to girls. Of 534 children with anemia (intervention n = 303; usual treatment n = 231), 517 were reassessed after 6 months (intervention n = 298; usual treatment n = 219) while 17 were lost to follow-up (intervention n = 5 and usual treatment n = 12). Anemia cure rate was higher in children in the intervention group compared with children receiving usual treatment (55.7% [n = 166 of 298] vs 41.4% [n = 90 of 219]). The risk ratio derived through multilevel logistic regression was 1.37(95%CI,1.04-1.70);themodel-estimatedriskdifferencewas15.1%(95%CI,3.9-26.3).Interventiongroup children demonstrated larger mean hemoglobin increments (difference, intervention vs control: 0.25 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.07-0.44 g/dL) and improved IFA adherence (61.7%; 95% CI, 56.2-67.3 vs 48.4%; 95% CI, 41.7-55.1 consumed >75% of tablets provided). Adverse events were mild (intervention: 26.8%; 95% CI, 21.8-31.9 vs usual treatment: 21%; 95% CI, 15.6-26.4). To cure 1 child with anemia, 7 mothers needed to be counseled (number needed to treat: 7; 95% CI, 4-26).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Parental education and counseling by a community health worker achieved perceivable gains in curing childhood anemia. Policy makers should consider this approach to enhance population level anemia control.

No abstract

IntroductionDespite proven effectiveness for people with chronic respiratory diseases, practical barriers to attending centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (centre-PR) limit accessibility. We aimed to review the clinical effectiveness, components and completion rates of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (home-PR) compared to centre-PR or usual care.Methods and analysisUsing Cochrane methodology, we searched (January 1990 to August 2021) six electronic databases using a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study type) search strategy, assessed Cochrane risk of bias, performed meta-analysis and narrative synthesis to answer our objectives and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to rate certainty of evidence.ResultsWe identified 16 studies (1800 COPD patients; 11 countries). The effects of home-PR on exercise capacity and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared to either centre-PR (n=7) or usual care (n=8); one study used both comparators. Compared to usual care, home-PR significantly improved exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.88, 95% CI 0.32–1.44; p=0.002) and HRQoL (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −0.88–−0.36; p<0.001). Compared to centre-PR, home-PR showed no significant difference in exercise capacity (SMD −0.10, 95% CI −0.25–0.05; p=0.21) or HRQoL (SMD 0.01, 95% CI −0.15–0.17; p=0.87).ConclusionHome-PR is as effective as centre-PR in improving functional exercise capacity and quality of life compared to usual care, and is an option to enable access to pulmonary rehabilitation.

IntroductionChronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) are common and disabling conditions that can result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but practical barriers to attending centre-based sessions or the need for infection control limits accessibility. Home-PR offers a potential solution that may improve access. We aim to systematically review the clinical effectiveness, completion rates and components of Home-PR for people with CRDs compared with Centre-PR or Usual care.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for ‘Chronic Respiratory Disease’ AND ‘Pulmonary Rehabilitation’ AND ‘Home-PR’, and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR?Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020220137.

No abstract