Trial reportComprehensive psychiatry2024
Efficacy of a dialogic book-sharing intervention in a South African birth cohort: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Comprehensive psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Universal interventions to improve young children's mental well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Psychological bulletin · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a community-led shared book reading intervention in Syrian refugee children: a randomised controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- The next 1000 days: building on early investments for the health and development of young children.Lancet (London, England) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvidence shows that dialogic book-sharing improves language development in young children in low-middle income countries (LMICs), particularly receptive and expressive language. It is unclear whether this intervention also boosts development of other neurocognitive and socio-emotional domains in children. Using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) nested in the Drakenstein Child Health Study (DCHS), a book-sharing intervention was implemented in caregivers of 3.5-year-old preschool children living in low-income South African communities.
methods122 Caregivers and their children (mean age 3.5 years) were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 61) or waitlist control group (n = 61). A neurocognitive battery determined baseline receptive and expressive language, executive function, theory of mind, and behavior scores.
resultsNo differences were observed between intervention and control groups on receptive and expressive language, or any of the neurocognitive or socio-emotional measures from baseline (3.5 years) to 4 months post-intervention administration (4 years).
conclusionThe benefits noted in prior literature of book-sharing in infants did not appear to be demonstrated at 4 months post-intervention, in children from 3.5 to 4 years of age. This suggests the importance of early intervention and emphasizes the need for further research on adaptation of book-sharing for older participants in a South African context.
trial registrationretrospectively registered on 03/04/2022 PACTR202204697674974.
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.