SynthesisBMJ paediatrics open2025
Health promotion through reading in the first thousand days: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ paediatrics open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe first thousand days, the period from the conception to the second year of life, play a fundamental role in establishing the foundation of a newborn's health, growth and neurological development, finally impacting its entire life. Reading interventions during this period produce numerous positive outcomes for the infants, such as their language skills and development, as well as enhancing the relationship between caregivers and children, supporting the importance of studying the effectiveness of shared reading groups in this period among children without pathologies and their caregivers. This research aims to systematically review evidence on shared group activity in the first thousand days, including also their caregivers, exploring the following outcomes: children's language skills, cognitive development, prosocial behaviour, parent-child relationship, reading habits, health literacy, quality of life and empowerment.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eight experimental studies met the inclusion criteria: shared group reading intervention involving children up to 24 months with their caregivers (especially parents, but also other caregivers). These interventions typically consisted of 6-12 group sessions led by trained facilitators in community settings.
resultsThe results showed no clear conclusions. Both the narrative synthesis and meta-analysis suggested improvements on children's language skills (comprehension), only the narrative analysis suggested positive changes in cognitive development and prosocial behaviour, alongside improved parent-child relationship and enhanced parental skills following the intervention. However, evidence was limited and inconsistent.
conclusionsThese findings highlighted the importance of evidence-based interventions in supporting infant development, particularly in disadvantaged contexts addressing inequalities, and the promising role of shared reading as an integral part of such interventions. However, further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of these early interventions in fostering optimal developmental outcomes during the critical first thousand days.
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.