Sharon Goldfeld, Jon Quach, Ruth Nicholls, Sheena Reilly, Obioha C Ukoumunne, Melissa Wake
{"title":"四岁儿童共同阅读干预的结果:让我们一起阅读试验。","authors":"Sharon Goldfeld, Jon Quach, Ruth Nicholls, Sheena Reilly, Obioha C Ukoumunne, Melissa Wake","doi":"10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the emergent literacy and language effects of a low-intensity literacy promotion program (Let's Read) provided via universal well-child services to parents during the first 4 years of their child's life.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Population-based, cluster randomized controlled trial performed between March 1, 2006, and December 10, 2010.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Maternal and child health centers (clusters) in 5 relatively disadvantaged local government areas in Melbourne, Australia.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>All parents attending their 4-week well-child appointments in participating centers were invited to take part in the study.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>The Let's Read program was delivered at 4, 12, 18, and 42 months during universal well-child care visits.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Child emergent literacy skills (intrasyllabic, phonemic, and sound/letter knowledge) and language (core, receptive, and expressive), measured at 4 years of age.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 630 parents participated, with 365 children in 32 intervention clusters and 265 children in 33 control clusters; 563 children (89.4%) were retained in the study to 4 years of age. The adjusted mean differences (intervention minus control) for emergent literacy was 0.2 (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.6; P = .29) for intrasyllabic units, 0.05 (95% CI, -0.4 to 0.5; P = .85) for phonemic awareness, and 0.1 (95% CI, -1.5 to 1.6; P = .92) for letter knowledge. For language, the differences were 1.6 (95% CI, -1.1 to 4.3; P = .25) for core, 0.8 (95% CI, -2.0 to 3.7; P = .56) for receptive, and 1.4 (95% CI, -1.4 to 4.2; P = .32) for expressive scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This population-wide primary care literacy promotion and book distribution program provided neither the anticipated benefits to literacy and language nor enhanced uptake of literacy activities at 4 years of age, even when targeted to relatively disadvantaged areas.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN04602902.</p>","PeriodicalId":8310,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine","volume":"166 11","pages":"1045-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1099","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Four-year-old outcomes of a universal infant-toddler shared reading intervention: the let's read trial.\",\"authors\":\"Sharon Goldfeld, Jon Quach, Ruth Nicholls, Sheena Reilly, Obioha C Ukoumunne, Melissa Wake\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the emergent literacy and language effects of a low-intensity literacy promotion program (Let's Read) provided via universal well-child services to parents during the first 4 years of their child's life.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Population-based, cluster randomized controlled trial performed between March 1, 2006, and December 10, 2010.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Maternal and child health centers (clusters) in 5 relatively disadvantaged local government areas in Melbourne, Australia.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>All parents attending their 4-week well-child appointments in participating centers were invited to take part in the study.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>The Let's Read program was delivered at 4, 12, 18, and 42 months during universal well-child care visits.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Child emergent literacy skills (intrasyllabic, phonemic, and sound/letter knowledge) and language (core, receptive, and expressive), measured at 4 years of age.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 630 parents participated, with 365 children in 32 intervention clusters and 265 children in 33 control clusters; 563 children (89.4%) were retained in the study to 4 years of age. The adjusted mean differences (intervention minus control) for emergent literacy was 0.2 (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.6; P = .29) for intrasyllabic units, 0.05 (95% CI, -0.4 to 0.5; P = .85) for phonemic awareness, and 0.1 (95% CI, -1.5 to 1.6; P = .92) for letter knowledge. For language, the differences were 1.6 (95% CI, -1.1 to 4.3; P = .25) for core, 0.8 (95% CI, -2.0 to 3.7; P = .56) for receptive, and 1.4 (95% CI, -1.4 to 4.2; P = .32) for expressive scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This population-wide primary care literacy promotion and book distribution program provided neither the anticipated benefits to literacy and language nor enhanced uptake of literacy activities at 4 years of age, even when targeted to relatively disadvantaged areas.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN04602902.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine\",\"volume\":\"166 11\",\"pages\":\"1045-52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1099\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1099\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Four-year-old outcomes of a universal infant-toddler shared reading intervention: the let's read trial.
Objective: To determine the emergent literacy and language effects of a low-intensity literacy promotion program (Let's Read) provided via universal well-child services to parents during the first 4 years of their child's life.
Design: Population-based, cluster randomized controlled trial performed between March 1, 2006, and December 10, 2010.
Setting: Maternal and child health centers (clusters) in 5 relatively disadvantaged local government areas in Melbourne, Australia.
Participants: All parents attending their 4-week well-child appointments in participating centers were invited to take part in the study.
Intervention: The Let's Read program was delivered at 4, 12, 18, and 42 months during universal well-child care visits.
Main outcome measure: Child emergent literacy skills (intrasyllabic, phonemic, and sound/letter knowledge) and language (core, receptive, and expressive), measured at 4 years of age.
Results: A total of 630 parents participated, with 365 children in 32 intervention clusters and 265 children in 33 control clusters; 563 children (89.4%) were retained in the study to 4 years of age. The adjusted mean differences (intervention minus control) for emergent literacy was 0.2 (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.6; P = .29) for intrasyllabic units, 0.05 (95% CI, -0.4 to 0.5; P = .85) for phonemic awareness, and 0.1 (95% CI, -1.5 to 1.6; P = .92) for letter knowledge. For language, the differences were 1.6 (95% CI, -1.1 to 4.3; P = .25) for core, 0.8 (95% CI, -2.0 to 3.7; P = .56) for receptive, and 1.4 (95% CI, -1.4 to 4.2; P = .32) for expressive scores.
Conclusion: This population-wide primary care literacy promotion and book distribution program provided neither the anticipated benefits to literacy and language nor enhanced uptake of literacy activities at 4 years of age, even when targeted to relatively disadvantaged areas.