Clinical Review

Promoting Early Literacy in the Pediatrician’s Office: What Have We Learned?

Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 2016 June;23(6)

References

1. Needlman R, Fried L, Morley D, et al. Clinic-based intervention to promote literacy. Am J Dis Child 1991;145:881–4.

2. Reach Out and Read: a national pediatric literacy program. Available at http://reachoutandread.org.

3. High PC, Klass P. Literacy promotion: an essential component of primary care pediatric practice. Council on Early Childhood. Pediatrics 2014;134:404–9.

4. Huttenlocher PR, Dabholkar AS. Regional differences in synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. J Comp Neurol 1997; 387:167–78.

5. Center on the Developing Child. The science of early childhood development (in brief); 2007. Accessed 6 May 2016 at www.developingchild.harvard.edu.

6. Connecting Science, Policy, and Practice: Zero to Three’s National Training Institute, 2015. Zero Three 2016;36(3).

7. Fox NA, Zeanah CH, Nelson CA. A matter of timing: enhancing positive change for the developing brain. Zero Three 2014;34(3):4–9.

8. Halfon N, Shulman E, Hochstein M. Brain development in early childhood. Technical report. UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities. Aug 2001.

9. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. The science of early childhood development: closing the gap between what we know and what we do. Center on the Developing Child. Harvard University; 2007.

10. Hart B, Risley TR. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes; 1995.

11. Hart B, Risley TR. The early catastrophe: the 30 million word gap by age 3. Am Educator 2003;27:4–9.

12. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Double jeopardy: how third grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. 2012. Accessed 21 Feb 2016 at www.aecf.org/resources/double-jeopardy.

13. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Early warning confirmed: a research update on third grade reading. 2013 Nov. Accessed 23 Feb 2016 at www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-EarlyWarningConfirmed-2013.pdf

14. Heckman J. The economics of inequality: the value of early childhood education. Am Educator 2011;47:31–5.

15. Christakis DA. The effects of infant media usage: what do we know and what should we learn? Acta Paediatr 2009;98: 8–16.

16. American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Communications and Media. Policy statement. Media use by children younger than 2 years. Pediatrics 2011;128:1040–5.

17. Linebarger DL, Walker D. Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and language outcomes. Am Behav Sci 2005;48:624–45.

18. Masako T, Okuma K, Kyoshima K. Television viewing and reduced parental utterance, and delayed speech development in infants and young children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161:618–9.

19. Rideout VJ, Hamel E. The media family: electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their parents. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2006.

20. Sosa AV. Association of the type of toy used during play with the quantity and quality of parent-infant communication. JAMA Pediatr 2016;170:132–7.

21. Vandewater EA, Bickham DS, Lee JH et al. When the television is always on: heavy television exposure and young children’s development. Am Behav Sci 2005;48:562–77.

22. Zimmerman FJ, Christakis DA, Meltzoff AN. Associations between media viewing and language development in children under age two years. J Pediatr 2007;151:364–8.

23. Chonchaiya W, Pruksananonda C. Television viewing associates with delayed language development. Acta Paediatr 2008;97:977–82.

24. Robb MB, Richert RA, Wartella EA. Just a talking book? Word learning from watching baby videos. Br J Dev Psychol 2009;27(Pt 1):27–45.

25. DeLoache JS, Chiong C, Sherman K, et al. Do babies learn from baby media? Psychol Sci 2010;21:1570–4.

26. Mendelsohn A, Mogliner L, Dreyer B, et al. The impact of a clinic-based literacy intervention on language development in inner-city preschool children. Pediatrics 2001;107:130–4.

27. Mendelsohn AL. Promoting language and literacy through reading aloud: the role of the pediatrician. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 2002;32:183–210.

28. High P, Hopman M, LaGasse L, et al. Evaluation of a clinic-based program to promote book sharing and bedtime routines among low-income urban families with young children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:459–65.

29. Golova N, Alario A, Vivier P, et al. Literacy promotion for Hispanic families in a primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 1999;103:993–7.

30. High PC, LaGasse L, Becker S, et al. Literacy promotion in primary care pediatrics: can we make a difference? Pediatrics 2000;105:927–34.

31. Needlman R, Toker KH, Dreyer BP, et al. Effectiveness of a primary care intervention to support reading aloud: a multicenter evaluation. Ambul Pediatr 2005;5:209–15.

32. Wu SC, Lue HC, Tseng LL. A pediatric clinic-based approach to early literacy promotion--experience in a well-baby clinic in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc 2012;111:258–64.

33. Sanders LM, Gershon TD, Huffman LC, et al. Prescribing books for immigrant children: a pilot study to promote emergent literacy among the children of Hispanic immigrants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000;154:771–7.

34. Kitabayashi KM, Huang GY, Linskey KR, et al. Parent-child reading interactions among English and English as a second language speakers in an underserved pediatric clinic in Hawai’i. Hawaii Med J 2008;67:260–3.

35. Festa N, Loftus PD, Cullen MR, Mendoza FS. Disparities in early exposure to book sharing within immigrant families. Pediatrics. 2014;134:e162–8.

36. Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, editors. From neurons to neighborhoods: the science of early childhood development. National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000.

37. Neuman SB. Guiding young children’s participation in early literacy development: a family literacy program for adolescent mothers. Early Child Dev Care 1997;127:119–29.

38. Tomopoulos S, Dreyer BP, Tamis-LeMonda C, et al. Books, toys, parent-child interaction, and development in young Latino children. Ambul Pediatr 2006;6:72–8.

39. Mendelsohn AL, Huberman HS, Berkule SB, et al. Primary care strategies for promoting parent-child interactions and school readiness in at-risk families: the Bellevue Project for Early Language, Literacy, and Education Success. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:33–41.

40. Ginsburg K; American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Communications, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics 2007;119:182–91.

41. Preston JL, Frost SJ, Mencl WE, et al. Early and late talkers: school-age language, literacy and neurolinguistic differences. Brain 2010;133:2185–95.

42. Hugdahl K, Gundersen H, Brekke C, et al. fMRI Brain activation in a Finnish family with specific language impairment compared with a normal control group. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004;47:162–72.

43. Pugh KR, Mencl WE, Jenner AR, et al. Functional neuroimaging studies of reading and reading disability (developmental dyslexia). Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2000;6:207–13.

44. Pugh KR, Mencl WE, Jenner AR, et al. Neurobiological studies of reading and reading disability. J Commun Disord 2001;34:479–92.

45. Hutton JS, Horowitz-Kraus T, Mendelsohn AL, et al. Home reading environment and brain activation in preschool children listening to stories. Pediatrics 2015;136:466–78.

46. Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health. 2011/12 National Survey of Children’s Health. Accessed 28 Feb 2016 at www.nschdata.org.

Heavy television use in a household can interfere with a child’s language development likely because parents spend less time talking to their child. In turn, children who live in households with heavy media use spend less time being read to. In the short-term, children younger than 2 years who spend a significant amount of time watching television or videos have higher chances of having a language delay [21–23]. Children who are exposed to infant videos also develop fewer language skills than children who are read to [24,25]. What is clear from all of this work is that young children learn best by interacting with the caring people in their lives, not with screens.

Given these facts, the AAP continues to discourage media use among children younger than 2, encourages parents to spend time reading and playing with their children, and discourages parents from having the TV or other electronics on as “background noise” when their children are present, since it decreases the amount of talking and interacting between parents and their children [16].

Benefits of the Reach Out and Read Model

For the past 25 years, pediatricians have been promoting early literacy in their practices following the ROR model, which consists of the following components:

Giving a new, colorful, age-appropriate book to babies, toddlers, and preschoolers at every well child visit starting at 6 months of age
Providing anticipatory guidance to parents on the benefits of reading aloud to children starting at birth
Having a literacy-rich waiting room area (which at times includes volunteers reading to the children)

The data supporting this very simple, inexpensive intervention is robust. Multiple studies have shown that children exposed to the ROR model have improved language skills when compared to children who are not. Parents also report a much higher frequency of reading with their children when exposed to ROR than parents who are not [26–28].

In a randomized controlled study of literacy promotion in Hispanic families, when parents were asked open-endedly “What are your 3 most favorite things to do with your child?,” parents who had received literacy-promoting anticipatory guidance and books reported “reading with my toddler” significantly more often than parents who had not (43% intervention vs. 13% controls). When asked about the frequency of reading to their toddlers, intervention parents were significantly more likely to report reading books with their children at least 3 days/week than controls (66% intervention vs. 24% controls). Applying a multiple logistic regression model controlling for child and parent age, parent reading habits, and English proficiency, we found that the odds of parents reading to their child at least 3 days/week were 10 times greater in intervention families (odds ratio [OR] 10.1, 95% confidence interval 4.0–25.6) than in controls [29].

In a parallel study with English-speaking low income families, when parents were asked open-endedly, “What are your child’s 3 most favorite activities?,” parents who had been exposed to the intervention, were significantly more likely to report “reading books” as one of their toddler’s 3 favorite activities than parents who were not exposed (27% intervention vs. 12% controls). Toddler expressive and receptive vocabulary scores were higher in intervention families and were associated with more frequent shared reading [30].