|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
May 27, 2026 11:00 AM
|
After
August 20, 2026 12:32 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Intervention
The experiment is embedded in the apuesta formativa (formative program) of the Sistema Departamental del Cuidado de Antioquia (SCA), an initiative of the Governorate of Antioquia designed to strengthen the autonomy, leadership, and well-being of women caregivers. The formative program started in 2025 and has an ongoing 2026 cohort. It is organized into three thematic schools: Del pasado, presente y futuro (identity, life planning, and productive projects), Del amor propio (self-care and economic autonomy), and De las autonomías (gender rights, labor autonomy, and civic participation). Each school comprises several modules delivered through in-person group sessions at the municipal level. The 2026 stage, on which this study focuses, covers nine modules across several sessions and emphasizes deepening the reflections from 2025 into concrete tools for leadership, economic autonomy, and rights-based participation. The program is directed at women identified by municipal administrations and Governorate databases as unpaid caregivers of children, the elderly, or persons with disabilities or illness. Participation is voluntary, and the program does not involve the women's household members in any of its standard activities.
The two interventions evaluated in this study are designed to extend the program's reach into the household by involving a co-resident adult member alongside the participating woman. Both are additions to the standard program and do not modify its content or delivery.
Component B — WhatsApp-based information campaign
Component B consists of a WhatsApp-based information campaign that delivers content for each thematic component of the formative program to both the participating woman and a co-resident adult household member she nominates. For each thematic component, both recipients receive two pieces: an infographic and an audio message. The infographic is a didactic image that summarizes the main learning of that component and includes conversation-opener questions intended to prompt discussion between the woman and her household member about the topics covered in the session, including care responsibilities, gender roles, and time use. The audio message covers the same content in spoken form. The two formats carry identical information and are always delivered together, so that all participants have an accessible way to engage with the material regardless of reading proficiency or visual limitations. Treated women are asked to provide the phone number of a co-resident adult household member at baseline; both numbers are then used for delivery throughout the campaign. Women assigned to the control condition receive no infographic, and the research team does not contact their nominated household member
.
Component C — Family closing session
Component C consists of a family closing session held at the end of the formative program. Women attending the program in treatment municipalities are invited to bring a co-resident adult household member or close family contact to a final program session. The session is facilitated by program staff and focuses on the themes covered throughout the formative program, with particular emphasis on care co-responsibility, time use, and household task distribution. Women in control municipalities receive the standard program closing without this session. To avoid anticipatory effects or changes in behavior prior to the session, women are not informed about the existence of Component C until the invitation is issued at program closure.
|
After
The experiment is embedded in the apuesta formativa (formative program) of the Sistema Departamental del Cuidado de Antioquia (SCA),
an initiative of the Governorate of Antioquia designed to strengthen the autonomy, leadership, and well-being of women caregivers. The
formative program started in 2025 and has an ongoing 2026 cohort. It is organized into three thematic schools: Del pasado, presente y
futuro (identity, life planning, and productive projects), Del amor propio (self-care and economic autonomy), and De las autonomías
(gender rights, labor autonomy, and civic participation). Each school comprises several modules delivered through in-person group sessions
at the municipal level. The 2026 stage, on which this study focuses, covers nine modules across several sessions and emphasizes deepening
the reflections from 2025 into concrete tools for leadership, economic autonomy, and rights-based participation. The program is directed at
women identified by municipal administrations and Governorate databases as unpaid caregivers of children, the elderly, or persons
with disabilities or illness. Participation is voluntary, and the program does not involve the women's household members in any of its
standard activities.
The two interventions evaluated in this study are designed to extend the program's reach into the household by involving a co-resident
adult member alongside the participating woman. Both are additions to the standard program and do not modify its content or delivery.
Component B — WhatsApp-based information campaign
Component B consists of a WhatsApp-based information campaign that delivers content for each thematic component of the formative program. The intervention has three arms, with women assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to control, individual-delivery treatment, and household-delivery treatment respectively.
For each thematic component, treated women receive two pieces of content: an infographic and an audio message. The infographic is a
didactic image that summarizes the main learning of that component and includes conversation-opener questions intended to prompt
discussion between the woman and her household member about the topics covered in the session, including care responsibilities,
gender roles, and time use. The audio message covers the same content in spoken form. The two formats carry identical information and are
always delivered together, so that all participants have an accessible way to engage with the material regardless of reading proficiency or
visual limitations.
The three arms differ only in whom receives the content:
Arm 0 (Control, N ≈ 703): Women receive no infographic or audio message. The research team does not contact them or any household
member through this campaign.
Arm 1 (Individual delivery, N ≈ 351): The infographic and audio message are delivered only to the woman herself.
Arm 2 (Household delivery, N ≈ 352): The infographic and audio message are delivered to both the woman and a co-resident adult
household member she nominated at baseline. Both recipients receive identical content simultaneously.
This three-arm design allows us to separately identify: (i) the effect of the information campaign itself, comparing individual
delivery to control; (ii) the incremental effect of involving a household member, comparing household delivery to individual delivery;
and (iii) the total effect of the household-inclusive intervention, comparing household delivery to control.
The study universe for Component B is 1,406 women, corresponding to those who completed the baseline survey (LB26) among the 2,063
attendees of the 2026 formative program cohort who were reachable by mobile phone. Women who did not complete the baseline survey are
not included in Component B but remain eligible for Component C.
Component C — Family closing session
Component C consists of a family closing session held at the end of the formative program. Women attending the program in treatment
municipalities are invited to bring a co-resident adult household member or close family contact to a final program session. The
session is facilitated by program staff and focuses on the themes covered throughout the formative program, with particular emphasis
on care co-responsibility, time use, and household task distribution. Women in control municipalities receive the standard program closing
without this session. To avoid anticipatory effects or changes in behavior prior to the session, women are not informed about the
existence of Component C until the invitation is issued at program closure.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Experimental Design
The experiment evaluates two household-inclusive components of a public caregiver training program (Sistema Departamental del Cuidado de Antioquia, SCA) in Colombia: (1) a WhatsApp-based information campaign delivering content to the woman and a co-resident adult household member throughout the program (Component B), and (2) a family closing session attended jointly by the woman and a household member at the end of the program (Component C). These two components are co-primary and form a 2x2 factorial design.
Study Population
The experimental universe consists of women attending the 2026 cohort of the SCA's formative program (apuesta formativa) across 51 prioritized municipalities in Antioquia. All women who have attended at least one program session in 2026 are eligible for inclusion.
Design Overview
The experiment combines two independent randomizations:
Component B — Household information cartillas (co-primary):
At the individual level, all 2026 program attendees are randomized 1:1 to receive the information campaign (T=1) or to a control condition with no information campaign (T=0). Randomization is stratified by municipality × sub-region × number of prior attendance sessions (categorized as 0, 1–2, 3+), using blocks of 4.
The information campaign is delivered via WhatsApp throughout the treatment period (May to October 2026), with one delivery per thematic component of the formative program. Each delivery consists of an infographic and an audio message. The infographic is a didactic image summarizing the main learning from that component and including conversation-opener questions designed to prompt discussion between household members. The audio message covers the same content in spoken form. The two formats carry identical information and are delivered together to ensure all participants have an accessible way to engage with the material, regardless of reading proficiency or visual limitations. Both the participating woman and the co-resident adult household member she nominates receive each delivery directly on their phones.
Component C — Family closing session (co-primary):
At the cluster level, all 51 prioritized municipalities are randomized 1:1 to treatment (approximately 25 municipalities) or control (approximately 26 municipalities), stratified by sub-region and municipality operational status. Women attending the program in treatment municipalities are invited to a final program session together with a co-resident adult household member or close family contact. Women in control municipalities receive the standard program closing without this session. Women are not informed about the existence of Component C until the session takes place at program closure.
Factorial Structure
Components B and C are crossed, generating four cells: women in municipalities assigned to control for both components (B=0, C=0); women assigned to information campaign only (B=1, C=0); women in treatment municipalities who do not receive information campaign (B=0, C=1); and women assigned to both information campaign and the family session (B=1, C=1). The main effects of each component and their interaction will be estimated within this 2x2 structure. The interaction effect is treated as exploratory.
|
After
Experimental Design
The experiment evaluates two household-inclusive components of a
public caregiver training program (Sistema Departamental del Cuidado
de Antioquia, SCA) in Colombia: (1) a WhatsApp-based information
campaign delivering content to the woman and a co-resident adult
household member throughout the program (Component B), and (2) a
family closing session attended jointly by the woman and a household
member at the end of the program (Component C). These two components
are co-primary and form a 3x2 factorial design.
Study Population
The experimental universe consists of women attending the 2026
cohort of the SCA's formative program (apuesta formativa) across
46 prioritized municipalities in Antioquia (following exclusion of
five municipalities with persistent operational issues: Santo Domingo,
Vigía del Fuerte, San Juan de Urabá, Jericó, and Murindó). All
women who have attended at least one program session in 2026 in
these municipalities are eligible for Component C. Women who also
completed the baseline survey (LB26) are eligible for Component B.
Design Overview
The experiment combines two independent randomizations:
Component B — WhatsApp-based information campaign (co-primary):
At the individual level, 1,406 women who completed the baseline
survey are randomized to one of three arms in a 2:1:1 ratio:
- Arm 0 (Control, N ≈ 703): no information campaign
- Arm 1 (Individual delivery, N ≈ 351): infographic and audio
message delivered only to the woman
- Arm 2 (Household delivery, N ≈ 352): infographic and audio
message delivered to both the woman and a co-resident adult
household member she nominated at baseline
Randomization is stratified by municipality × sub-region × number
of prior attendance sessions (categorized as 0, 1–2, 3+), using
blocks of 4.
The information campaign is delivered via WhatsApp throughout the
treatment period (May to October 2026), with one delivery per
thematic component of the formative program. Each delivery consists
of an infographic and an audio message. The infographic is a
didactic image summarizing the main learning from that component
and including conversation-opener questions designed to prompt
discussion between household members. The audio message covers the
same content in spoken form. The two formats carry identical
information and are delivered together to ensure all participants
have an accessible way to engage with the material, regardless of
reading proficiency or visual limitations.
The three-arm design allows separate identification of: (i) the
effect of the information campaign delivered to the woman alone
(Arm 1 vs Arm 0); (ii) the incremental effect of extending the
delivery to a household member (Arm 2 vs Arm 1); and (iii) the
total effect of the household-inclusive intervention (Arm 2 vs
Arm 0).
Component C — Family closing session (co-primary):
At the cluster level, all 46 prioritized municipalities are
randomized 1:1 to treatment (approximately 23 municipalities) or
control (approximately 23 municipalities), stratified by sub-region
and municipality operational status. Women attending the program
in treatment municipalities are invited to a final program session
together with a co-resident adult household member or close family
contact. Women in control municipalities receive the standard
program closing without this session. Women are not informed about
the existence of Component C until the session takes place at
program closure.
Factorial Structure
Components B and C are crossed, generating six cells based on the
three-arm Component B design and the two-arm Component C design:
| | C=0 (no family session) | C=1 (family session) |
| B=0 (Control) | ~352 | ~351 |
| B=1 (Individual) | ~176 | ~175 |
| B=2 (Household) | ~176 | ~176 |
The main effects of each component and pairwise contrasts within
Component B (Arm 1 vs Arm 0, Arm 2 vs Arm 0, Arm 2 vs Arm 1) will
be estimated as pre-specified analyses. Interaction effects between
Components B and C are treated as exploratory. Cell sizes assume
proportional allocation to Component C treatment and control
municipalities.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
51 municipalities
|
After
46 municipalities
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
3,349 women
|
After
1,406 women
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
The following figures are based on program attendance records available as of May 2026 and should be understood as a lower bound. The Governorate of Antioquia has not yet confirmed the final 2026 cohort size; as additional women enroll and attend program sessions, the experimental universe may expand. The randomization will be updated accordingly as new attendees are incorporated.
Component B (individual-level randomization, all 2026 program attendees):
~1,250 women: control (no information campaign)
~1,250 women: treatment (information campaign delivered to woman and nominated household member)
Total: ~2,500 women, stratified by municipality × sub-region × number of 2025 attendance sessions (categorized as 0, 1–2, 3+), 1:1 allocation
Component C (cluster-level randomization at municipality level):
26 municipalities: control (no family session)
25 municipalities: treatment (family session offered)
Total: 51 municipalities, stratified by sub-region and municipality operational status, 1:1 allocation
|
After
The following figures are based on program attendance and baseline
survey records available as of the randomization date. The
Governorate of Antioquia has not yet confirmed the final 2026
cohort size; as additional women enroll, attend program sessions,
and complete the baseline survey, the experimental universe may
expand. The randomization will be updated accordingly as new
attendees are incorporated.
Component B (individual-level randomization, three arms, 2:1:1
allocation):
~703 women: Arm 0 — Control (no information campaign)
~351 women: Arm 1 — Individual delivery (infographic and audio
message delivered only to the woman)
~352 women: Arm 2 — Household delivery (infographic and audio
message delivered to both the woman and a co-resident adult
household member she nominated at baseline)
Total: 1,406 women who completed the baseline survey, stratified
by municipality × sub-region × number of 2025 attendance sessions
(categorized as 0, 1–2, 3+)
Component C (cluster-level randomization at municipality level):
~23 municipalities: control (no family session)
~23 municipalities: treatment (family session offered)
Total: 46 prioritized municipalities (following exclusion of five
municipalities with persistent operational issues: Santo Domingo,
Vigía del Fuerte, San Juan de Urabá, Jericó, and Murindó),
stratified by sub-region and municipality operational status,
1:1 allocation
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
Power calculations are reported for each co-primary component separately. Because baseline variance estimates and intraclass correlation coefficients are not yet available for this population, MDEs are discussed across a range of plausible assumptions rather than fixed to a single point estimate. All calculations assume 80% power and a two-sided significance level of 0.05.
Component B (individual-level randomization)
With approximately 1,250 women per arm (N ≈ 2,500, lower bound), the MDE under a simple difference-in-means specification is 0.112 SD. Where baseline data are available and explain 20–40% of endline variance, the MDE falls to 0.087–0.100 SD. Using time use estimates for rural women in Colombia from the Encuesta Nacional de Uso del Tiempo as a reference (SD ≈ 3–4 hours per day), this corresponds to a detectable effect of roughly 15–27 minutes per day in unpaid care work. Under a worst-case scenario in which only 50% of the women reported by the Governorate attend the program (N ≈ 1,250, approximately 625 per arm), the MDE rises to 0.159 SD without baseline controls, or 0.123–0.142 SD with baseline controls explaining 20–40% of variance. The design retains the ability to detect meaningful effects under this scenario, though with reduced precision.
Component C (cluster-level randomization)
With 51 municipalities (25 treatment, 26 control) and an average cluster size of approximately 49 women, the MDE depends critically on the intraclass correlation (ICC) at the municipality level. Applying a t-distribution correction with 49 degrees of freedom, at low ICC values (0.01–0.02), typical of community-level interventions in similar settings, the design can detect effects of 0.139–0.160 SD. At higher ICC values (0.10–0.20), the MDE grows to 0.275–0.372 SD, reflecting the limited number of available clusters. The cluster structure is fixed at 51 municipalities regardless of individual-level attendance, so a 50% reduction in women per cluster would reduce the average cluster size to approximately 25, increasing the design effect modestly but leaving the number of clusters unchanged. At ICC = 0.05 and a cluster size of 25, the MDE rises from 0.211 to 0.261 SD, which remains within a plausible range for norm and time use outcomes in this context.
Power calculations will be updated in an amendment to this pre-registration once the Governorate confirms the final 2026 cohort size and empirical variance estimates from the baseline data are available.
|
After
Power calculations are reported for each co-primary component
separately. Because baseline variance estimates and intraclass
correlation coefficients are not yet available for this population,
MDEs are discussed across a range of plausible assumptions rather
than fixed to a single point estimate. All calculations assume 80%
power and a two-sided significance level of 0.05.
Component B (individual-level randomization, three arms)
The three-arm design (Control, Individual delivery, Household
delivery) allocated in a 2:1:1 ratio yields three pre-specified
comparisons, each with different statistical power due to differences
in cell sizes.
Comparison 1: Individual delivery vs Control (N ≈ 351 vs 703)
Under a simple difference-in-means specification, the MDE is 0.146
SD. Where baseline data are available and explain 20–40% of endline
variance, the MDE falls to 0.113–0.131 SD. Using time use estimates
for rural women in Colombia from the Encuesta Nacional de Uso del
Tiempo as a reference (SD ≈ 3–4 hours per day), this corresponds to
a detectable effect of roughly 20–35 minutes per day in unpaid care
work.
Comparison 2: Household delivery vs Control (N ≈ 352 vs 703)
Statistical properties are essentially identical to Comparison 1
due to similar cell sizes. MDE is 0.146 SD without baseline
controls, or 0.113–0.131 SD with baseline controls explaining
20–40% of variance.
Comparison 3: Household delivery vs Individual delivery (N ≈ 352
vs 351)
This comparison identifies the incremental effect of extending the
information campaign to a household member beyond delivering it to
the woman alone. Under a simple difference-in-means specification,
the MDE is 0.211 SD. With baseline controls explaining 20–40% of
endline variance, the MDE falls to 0.163–0.189 SD. This comparison
is the least well-powered of the three; it will detect large
incremental effects of household involvement but may miss smaller
ones.
Under a worst-case scenario in which fewer women complete the
baseline survey than expected (e.g., 70% of the current 1,406, or
N ≈ 984), the MDEs for comparisons 1 and 2 would rise to
approximately 0.175 SD without baseline controls, and to 0.135–0.157
SD with baseline controls. The MDE for comparison 3 would rise to
approximately 0.252 SD. The design retains the ability to detect
meaningful effects on comparisons against control under this
scenario, though with reduced precision for the pairwise treatment
comparison.
Component C (cluster-level randomization)
With 46 municipalities (approximately 23 treatment and 23 control)
and an average cluster size of approximately 47 women (2,162
eligible women distributed across 46 municipalities), the MDE
depends critically on the intraclass correlation (ICC) at the
municipality level. Applying a t-distribution correction with 44
degrees of freedom, at low ICC values (0.01–0.02), typical of
community-level interventions in similar settings, the design can
detect effects of approximately 0.147–0.170 SD. At higher ICC
values (0.10–0.20), the MDE grows to 0.290–0.393 SD, reflecting
the limited number of available clusters.
The cluster structure is fixed at 46 municipalities regardless of
individual-level attendance, so variation in enrollment would
affect the average cluster size but leave the number of clusters
unchanged. At ICC = 0.05 and a cluster size of 25 (reflecting a
substantial enrollment shortfall), the MDE rises from approximately
0.223 SD to 0.276 SD, which remains within a plausible range for
norm and time use outcomes in this context.
Multiple comparisons within Component B
Because Component B involves three pre-specified pairwise
comparisons, we will apply the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery
rate procedure (q = 0.05) across the three tests to control the
family-wise error rate.
Power calculations will be updated in an amendment to this
pre-registration once empirical variance estimates from the
baseline data are available.
|