the finding that even at initial evaluation the scores on
the factor 'family group support' were high and were equal
to the post intervention values at Delhi centre. As family
support was near optimal even in the pre-intervention stage
at this centre, subsequent intervention did not improve it
The factors that did not show much change with intervention
were those related to social supports and primary group concern.
The reason for this finding is not clear and may indicate
two aspects. One, that social supports and primary group concern
were fairly optimal even at initial contact and hence the
intervention did not improve them, or secondly, that the nature
and method of intervention did not address these problems
sufficiently. Even though the former areas did not show
improvement, a related area i.e., social contacts, improved
considerably in Delhi and Bangalore, indicating that women
do improve in their social network with intervention, though
supports from these contacts do not change much. Mental mastery
improved only in one centre and that too at one year, while
perceived ill health did not improve at all.
To summarize, it appears that subjective well being in general,
improves with intervention specially in some of its factors.
However, certain areas do .not show change either because
the intervention is not targeted at this or changes are slow
and hence not obvious at six months and one year. The improvement
in the control area in some of the factors may indicate improvement
that is independent of intervention and which occurs because
of environmental variables such as income, standard of living,
geographical problems. Hence, these improved simultaneously
in the control and experimental areas. The improvement at
Lucknow in the control group can be explained by a difference
in methodology in that area. The Anganwadi workers in both
experimental and control areas were trained in the scoring
of HRC, sensitizing even those in the control areas to possible
risk factors and even though intervention was not done actively,
by virtue of the knowledge, the workers might have inadvertantly
done some intervention, thus accounting for improvement even
in the control areas.
The results emphasize the importance of family intervention
on improving psychosocial factors and the home environment.
Areas like poverty, housekeeping and material characteristics
improved at most centres, emphasising the effectiveness of
such an intervention.
Both the nutritional status and development quotient of children
improved with intervention. The nutritional status improved
both at six months and