ArticleAcademic pediatrics
Intended Outcomes and Core Components of Primary Care-Based Literacy Promotion as Defined by Experts.
Article in Academic pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pediatric Literacy Promotion for Latino Families by Texts and Referrals: A 3-Arm RCT.Pediatrics · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePrimary care-based literacy promotion enhances caregiver-child shared reading and child language outcomes, yet variation in implementation may dilute its impact. This study examines expert perspectives on intended outcomes of literacy promotion, as well as its core components, those necessary to achieve intended outcomes, and components that are recommended but adaptable to context.
methodsWe purposively sampled health care and policy experts in primary care-based literacy promotion from the United States and Canada for online, in-depth interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed iteratively, engaging emergent and a priori codes based on the Components and Rationales for Effectiveness fidelity method and the team's prior work to identify themes.
resultsWe achieved saturation after 22 interviews with 24 participants (16 US participants, 8 Canadian). We identified 4 themes: 1) Traditionally, literacy promotion focused on enhancing preliteracy skills and school readiness. Over time, this outcome has evolved to include fostering early relational health as a foundational goal; 2) core components include a trusted clinician delivering a strength-based, family-centered message, while modeling developmentally-informed shared reading; 3) components that are adaptable to setting and context include literacy-rich clinical environments and community resource referrals; 4) experts diverged on whether providing a children's book during literacy promotion is essential, but there was congruence that book provision alone is insufficient.
conclusionsExperts identified strength-based, family-centered guidance from a trusted clinician with developmentally-focused modeling as core to support intended outcomes of early relational health and school readiness. This understanding can inform training and health care improvement activities aimed at optimizing primary care-based literacy promotion.
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.