早期识字促进对儿童语言发展和家庭阅读环境的影响:一项随机对照试验

James P. Guevara MD, MPH , Danielle Erkoboni MD , Marsha Gerdes PhD , Sherry Winston MS , Danielle Sands MPH , Kirsten Rogers BS , Trude Haecker MD , Manuel E. Jimenez MD, MSHP , Alan L. Mendelsohn MD
{"title":"早期识字促进对儿童语言发展和家庭阅读环境的影响:一项随机对照试验","authors":"James P. Guevara MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Danielle Erkoboni MD ,&nbsp;Marsha Gerdes PhD ,&nbsp;Sherry Winston MS ,&nbsp;Danielle Sands MPH ,&nbsp;Kirsten Rogers BS ,&nbsp;Trude Haecker MD ,&nbsp;Manuel E. Jimenez MD, MSHP ,&nbsp;Alan L. Mendelsohn MD","doi":"10.1016/j.ympdx.2020.100020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To determine if early literacy promotion, which consisted of board books and reading promotion beginning with newborns, is more effective than standard literacy promotion beginning at 6 months.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Hybrid type 1 randomized controlled implementation trial of Medicaid-eligible newborns. Prior to 6 months of age, early literacy promotion participants received board books and reading promotion at well visits plus weekly text messages on reading, while standard literacy promotion participants only received weekly text messages on safety. Both groups received board books and reading promotion at well visits after 6 months as part of Reach Out and Read. Measures included proportion who received board books to assess implementation and StimQ Read Subscale (SQRS) scores and Preschool Language Scale-Fifth Edition (PLS-5) scores at 6 and 24 months to assess outcomes. Differences in measures were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 120 newborns enrolled, most were African American, resided with a single parent, or had a parent with ≤high school education. Overall 82% of early literacy promotion participants received books/counseling at well visits &lt;6 months old. Children in the early literacy promotion arm had greater SQRS scores (11.0 vs 9.4, <em>P</em> = .006) but similar PLS-5 scores at 6 months, but there were no differences in SQRS or PLS-5 scores between groups at 24 months.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Implementation of a literacy promotion program early in infancy was associated with richer home reading environments at 6 months but did not improve language development. Although an early literacy program was feasible, additional study may be needed to assess other potential benefits.</p></div><div><h3>Trial registration</h3><p><span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg>: <span>NCT02713659</span><svg><path></path></svg>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36706,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatrics: X","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100020"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ympdx.2020.100020","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Early Literacy Promotion on Child Language Development and Home Reading Environment: A Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"James P. Guevara MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Danielle Erkoboni MD ,&nbsp;Marsha Gerdes PhD ,&nbsp;Sherry Winston MS ,&nbsp;Danielle Sands MPH ,&nbsp;Kirsten Rogers BS ,&nbsp;Trude Haecker MD ,&nbsp;Manuel E. Jimenez MD, MSHP ,&nbsp;Alan L. Mendelsohn MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ympdx.2020.100020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To determine if early literacy promotion, which consisted of board books and reading promotion beginning with newborns, is more effective than standard literacy promotion beginning at 6 months.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Hybrid type 1 randomized controlled implementation trial of Medicaid-eligible newborns. Prior to 6 months of age, early literacy promotion participants received board books and reading promotion at well visits plus weekly text messages on reading, while standard literacy promotion participants only received weekly text messages on safety. Both groups received board books and reading promotion at well visits after 6 months as part of Reach Out and Read. Measures included proportion who received board books to assess implementation and StimQ Read Subscale (SQRS) scores and Preschool Language Scale-Fifth Edition (PLS-5) scores at 6 and 24 months to assess outcomes. Differences in measures were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 120 newborns enrolled, most were African American, resided with a single parent, or had a parent with ≤high school education. Overall 82% of early literacy promotion participants received books/counseling at well visits &lt;6 months old. Children in the early literacy promotion arm had greater SQRS scores (11.0 vs 9.4, <em>P</em> = .006) but similar PLS-5 scores at 6 months, but there were no differences in SQRS or PLS-5 scores between groups at 24 months.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Implementation of a literacy promotion program early in infancy was associated with richer home reading environments at 6 months but did not improve language development. Although an early literacy program was feasible, additional study may be needed to assess other potential benefits.</p></div><div><h3>Trial registration</h3><p><span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg>: <span>NCT02713659</span><svg><path></path></svg>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatrics: X\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100020\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ympdx.2020.100020\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatrics: X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259004202030001X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatrics: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259004202030001X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

目的探讨从新生儿开始的板书和阅读促进是否比从6个月开始的标准识字促进更有效。研究设计:符合医疗补助条件的新生儿混合1型随机对照实施试验。在6个月大之前,早期识字促进的参与者在探井时收到了板书和阅读促进,以及每周关于阅读的短信,而标准识字促进的参与者只收到每周关于安全的短信。6个月后,作为“接触和阅读”计划的一部分,两组人都在访井时收到了板书和阅读推广。测量包括在6个月和24个月时接受板书的比例来评估实施情况,以及StimQ阅读子量表(SQRS)分数和学前语言量表第五版(PLS-5)分数来评估结果。使用意向治疗分析评估测量的差异。结果入组的120名新生儿中,大多数是非裔美国人,单亲家庭,或父母中一方的教育程度不超过高中。总体而言,82%的早期识字促进参与者在6个月大时接受了书籍/咨询。早期识字促进组儿童的SQRS评分较高(11.0比9.4,P = 0.006),但6个月时的PLS-5评分相似,但24个月时各组间的SQRS和PLS-5评分无差异。结论幼儿早期实施识字促进计划与6个月时丰富的家庭阅读环境有关,但对语言发展没有促进作用。虽然早期识字计划是可行的,但可能需要进一步的研究来评估其他潜在的好处。临床试验网站:NCT02713659。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effects of Early Literacy Promotion on Child Language Development and Home Reading Environment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To determine if early literacy promotion, which consisted of board books and reading promotion beginning with newborns, is more effective than standard literacy promotion beginning at 6 months.

Study design

Hybrid type 1 randomized controlled implementation trial of Medicaid-eligible newborns. Prior to 6 months of age, early literacy promotion participants received board books and reading promotion at well visits plus weekly text messages on reading, while standard literacy promotion participants only received weekly text messages on safety. Both groups received board books and reading promotion at well visits after 6 months as part of Reach Out and Read. Measures included proportion who received board books to assess implementation and StimQ Read Subscale (SQRS) scores and Preschool Language Scale-Fifth Edition (PLS-5) scores at 6 and 24 months to assess outcomes. Differences in measures were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis.

Results

Of 120 newborns enrolled, most were African American, resided with a single parent, or had a parent with ≤high school education. Overall 82% of early literacy promotion participants received books/counseling at well visits <6 months old. Children in the early literacy promotion arm had greater SQRS scores (11.0 vs 9.4, P = .006) but similar PLS-5 scores at 6 months, but there were no differences in SQRS or PLS-5 scores between groups at 24 months.

Conclusions

Implementation of a literacy promotion program early in infancy was associated with richer home reading environments at 6 months but did not improve language development. Although an early literacy program was feasible, additional study may be needed to assess other potential benefits.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02713659.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pediatrics: X
Journal of Pediatrics: X Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
23 days
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Giant Juvenile Xanthogranuloma Co-Occurring with Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis Characteristics of High Versus Low-Performing Hospitals for Very Preterm Infant Morbidity and Mortality Table of Contents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1