ArticleAcademic pediatrics
Literacy Promotion Training and Implementation in Pediatric Continuity Clinics.
Article in Academic pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maximizing the impact of reach out and read literacy promotion:anticipatory guidance and modeling.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- Reach Out and Read Implementation: A Scoping Review.Academic pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite endorsement by the American Academy of Pediatrics, there are no national data on literacy promotion (LP) training and behaviors.
objectiveTo describe LP training experiences and behaviors of pediatric and internal medicine/pediatrics residents and faculty nationally, and the association between LP training and behaviors.
methodsThe Academic Pediatric Association's Continuity Research Network and Reach Out and Read National Center sent an online survey to faculty and residents at participating Continuity Research Network clinics. Respondents were asked about LP training experiences and behaviors. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling.
results473 faculty and 1216 residents at 42 institutions participated. More faculty than residents reported completing online Reach Out and Read training (63% vs 45%, P < .0001). More residents reported learning in clinic from others (92% vs 89%, P = .04). Training experiences did not differ otherwise. More faculty reported providing anticipatory guidance (87% vs 77%, P < .0001); modeling shared reading (69% vs 45%, P < .0001); and using books for developmental assessment (80% vs 62%, P < .0001). Both groups (97%) reported distributing books. The training modality most often endorsed as "very/extremely influential" was learning in clinic from others. Some LP behaviors were associated more strongly with online training while others were associated more strongly with in-person training.
conclusionsOnline training and in-person training are both associated with high quality delivery of LP. Faculty members are more likely to have completed online training and to report engaging in the full range of recommended LP behaviors. These data have implications for LP training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.