Exploring Early Childhood Development Interventions for Building Human Capital in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review.
Johanna Beukes, Stephanie Alcock, Michelle Leal and 3 others
PMID 40667583WHAT IT FOUND
Nutrition-focused interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa consistently reported growth benefits, but multidimensional programs showed mixed results.
Early learning and responsive caregiving interventions were scarce, leaving gaps in evidence for developmental outcomes beyond physical growth.
Key findings
01Nutrition-focused interventions were the most frequent type of early childhood development study identified in the region.
02Multidimensional interventions that combined several components of the Nurturing Care Framework showed mixed effects, with only three of seven reporting improvements in child development.
03There is a significant lack of evidence for interventions focused specifically on early learning opportunities and safety and security.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review did not assess the methodological quality or risk of bias of the included studies, so the reliability of the reported findings is unknown. Several included studies used the same dataset or sample (e.g., from the SHINE trial), which means the review may overstate the number of distinct interventions tested. The search was restricted to randomised controlled trials, excluding cohort studies, qualitative research, and quasi-experimental designs that might provide insight into real-world implementation. The review is limited to Sub-Saharan Africa and may not be generalizable to other low- and middle-income regions.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The review was not funded by any specific grant mentioned in the text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the reported 'positive associations' in this review as proof that specific interventions work. The authors did not assess the quality of the included trials, and some studies reused data from the same large trials, meaning the evidence is less robust than a standard systematic review would provide.