Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Promoting effective child development practices in the first year of life: does timing make a difference?

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1Email author and
  • 2
BMC Pediatrics201414:222

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-14-222

  • Received: 16 October 2013
  • Accepted: 19 June 2014
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

There is an increasing need for parenting programs aimed at promoting parent–child interaction. A variety of interventions have been proposed. The use of audiovisual materials for parents has been shown to be effective but limited information is available on the optimal timing for its use, particularly for new parents during the first year of life of their children. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a video administered at two different times to first-time parents in modifying parental knowledge, attitudes and intentions with regards to effective care practices.

Methods

Open randomized controlled trial carried out in a referral mother and child hospital. Eligible parents were randomly assigned to receive a video at one month (early intervention) or at seven months (late intervention) of age of their child. The video addressed four specific activities related to early child development: reading aloud to the baby, early exposure to music, promotion of early socialization for parents and for children. The primary outcome was the proportion of parents who declared that their knowledge, attitudes and intentions changed after having seen the video at one or seven months of age of the child.

Results

One hundred and five families were randomly allocated either to the early (53) or to the late (52) intervention group. For 99 families (52 in the early and 47 in the late group) a complete outcome evaluation was available. Parents included in the early administration group more frequently reported modifications in their knowledge of the suggested practices while parents in the late group more frequently reported a change in their attitudes. This finding was consistent across all four practices. The video was found to influence parental intentions in the great majority of interviewed parents with no significant difference between groups (82.7% and 87.2% in the early and late intervention group, respectively).

Conclusions

Audiovisual materials can be an effective complementary tool in programs aimed at supporting parents, particularly those dealing with their first baby. The results provide some useful insights into the differential benefits of using audiovisual aids at different times during the first year of life of the baby.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02120430

Keywords

  • Early childhood
  • Audiovisual materials
  • Parent–child interaction
  • Parenting programs
  • Timing

Background

Early experiences affect both structure and functioning of the brain and child development. In particular, interactions with caregivers during the first years of life are crucial to ensure an adequate psychosocial development in children [1]. Conversely, lack of stimulation is associated with early social disadvantage [24].

A variety of interventions, delivered through home visits, group sessions with caregivers, individual counselling, or combined approaches have been proposed and appear to be effective in promoting parent–child interaction [1, 57]. When associated with active strategies to promote behavioural changes in caregivers, such as feed-back, coaching and role playing, parenting programmes appear to be more effective than when based on information alone [810].

Although their usefulness is increasingly recognized, the costs and organizational issues of parenting programmes, particularly when based on planned home visitation, may make their implementation difficult [1113]. A variety of technological supports have been proposed in order to overcome these obstacles. The use of audiovisual aids for parental counselling has already been evaluated [1416], and experiences have been described in which the interaction between children and parents was videotaped and discussed with families to promote early child development [8, 1721]. Evidence on the efficacy of videotapes, DVDs or other electronic media conveying messages aimed at promoting good health practices is available for adults and children [2225]. However, the choice of the optimal timing for this kind of interventions, while usually based on the critical periods of child development and mother-infant interaction [26], is supported, to our knowledge, by very limited evidence with regard to parental acceptance. This appears to be particularly relevant when targeting first-time parents, who usually receive a lot of new information within a short period of time. Although the optimal balance between the usefulness of a message and its ability to be received by parents may depend on many contextual factors, such as family context, information load and quality, there may be some empirical indications on when such messages could best be delivered. Thus, based on the hypothesis that the effectiveness of information provided to first-time parents in modifying their knowledge, attitudes and intentions regarding rearing practices may depend on when the information is delivered, we designed a study to compare the effectiveness of administering a video at two different times, i.e. at one and seven months of age of the child.

Methods

The study was designed as an open randomized controlled trial and was carried out at the maternity ward of the Institute for Maternal and Child Health - IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste (Italy), a referral hospital and research centre. The study was conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Independent Bioethics Committee of the Institute (Prot. CE/V-76, June 11, 2007 and CE/V-86, April 28, 2008), with written informed consent required for enrolment. Inclusion criteria for parents were: first parenting experience, local residence, no major health or psychosocial problems in parents and in the newborn, no delay in discharge from the maternity ward, adequate knowledge of Italian.

Eligible parents were randomly assigned to receive the video:
  1. 1)

    during the first month of life of the child (early intervention group);

     
  2. 2)

    during the seventh month of life (late intervention group).

     

The first month of life of the child was chosen since most of the information on parenting is usually provided during this period. The seventh month of the child was chosen because several interventions on parenting (i.e. promotion of reading aloud to children) are devised to start at this age.

The video was delivered through a home visit by a psychologist with specific experience in working with parents.

Randomization was centralized and carried out by the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit of the Institute using a computer-based method (Stata/IC version 9, StataCorp 2005, College Station, TX, USA). The allocation concealment was guaranteed by the use of closed opaque envelopes, consecutively numbered. In each envelope a patient’s allocation group was indicated, based on randomization. The researchers opened the first available envelope and assigned the patient to the corresponding group.

The Video

The video was developed ad hoc for the present study by a multidisciplinary team that included clinicians (psychologists, paediatricians) with expertise in parenting support and related programmes, and by a filmmaker. It was conceived as an aid to parenting in the first year of life. It provides an opportunity for parents to look at their own experiences, including the common problems encountered in every day care and child-rearing practices, reflected in the images and in the voices of “normal” caregivers from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

The video lasts 24 minutes and describes “the birth of a new relationship” between primary caregivers (mostly mothers, but also fathers and grandparents) and their babies, in chronological order, starting from late pregnancy to the end of the first year. Caregiver-child interactions are shown from early contact after delivery to common care practices, such as breastfeeding and feeding, vocal exchanges and play, with an emphasis on four specific activities, which are believed to improve child development and caregiver-child interaction: reading aloud to the baby, exposure to songs, rhymes and music, promotion of early socialization for parents and for children [2731]. All the proposed sequences are meant to represent positive interactions, but no open recommendations to parents are given. Only the voices of the caregivers and the babies are audible, the intention being that of representing real life situations rather than showcasing ideal situations.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of our study was the proportion of parents who, after being exposed to the video in one of the two different periods, declared that their knowledge, attitudes and intentions regarding any of the four specific activities examined (reading aloud, exposure to music, caregiver and child early socialization) had changed. Details on how the video was used and on the feelings it elicited were also collected.

Information was collected through a researcher-administered structured questionnaire, which includes two sections: section A collected details on the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the family and on pregnancy, delivery and immediate post-partum; section B focused on how the video was perceived, and on whether it prompted any modification in knowledge, attitudes and intentions. The Additional file 1 provides details on the main issues addressed by the questionnaire and on the type of questions asked. The questions related to the study outcomes are described extensively. Most of the questions, and all of those used for the present analysis, were closed-ended. Section B used Hamblin’s approach (1974) [32], which identifies three levels of evaluation: reactions, learning and behaviours. Furthermore, to assess changes in parental competence, section B was based on Bloom’s theory (1986) [33] which distinguishes between knowledge, skills and attitudes, limiting questions to the first and last fields, since there were no practical abilities to be assessed, and focusing on reading aloud, exposure to music and early socialization.

To explore the feelings elicited by the video we used eight categories of emotions, as proposed by Colasanti and Mastromarino (1994) [34]: happiness, sadness, fear, rage, guilt, sense of competence, lack of self-confidence, and sense of inadequacy.

Interviews were administered by a trained psychologist, unblinded to the purpose of the study and to the allocation group, in the course of a home visit carried out on average two weeks after the delivery of the video.

Statistical analysis

Categorical data are presented as numbers and percentages, continuous data as means and standard deviations. Differences between groups were evaluated with a chi-square test (or a Fisher exact test when appropriate) for categorical variables and with the Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables, since a non-normal distribution of data was found both with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and with normal probability plots. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to control for differences between the two groups at enrolment and to control for any effect of socio-demographic variables on the association between outcome measures (knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and early and late intervention. Analyses were carried out with the Stata/IC version 9 for Windows (StataCorp 2005, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

We contacted a convenience sample of 127 families living in the Trieste area, immediately after birth, while mother and baby were still admitted at the maternity ward. Twenty-two families (17.3%) refused to participate, while 105 families were randomly assigned to the early (53) or to the late intervention group (52). Ninety-nine families (52 in the early and 47 in the late group) completed the study, while six families were lost to follow up (5.7%).

There were no differences between the two groups in terms of main socio-demographic characteristics, except for maternal formal education level which was higher in the late intervention group (p = 0.03) (Table 1).
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of the enrolled population

 

Intervention at 1st month (early group, n = 53)

Intervention at 7th month (late group, n = 52)

p

Sex of the infant: female, number (%)

22 (41.5)

24 (46.1)

0.6

Mother’s age in years, mean (SD)

33.4 (0.7)

33.8 (0.6)

0.7

Mother’s nationality: Italian, number (%)

47 (88.7)

44 (84.6)

0.5

Educational level of the mother, number (%)

  

0.03

Completed primary or secondary school

11 (20.7)

2 (3.8)

Completed high school

22 (41.5)

26 (50.0)

Bachelor degree or higher

20 (37.7)

24 (46.1)

Employed mother, number (%)

42 (79.2)

47 (90.4)

0.1

Mother in maternity leave, number (%)*

42 (100.0)

43 (91.5)

0.1#

Father’s age in years, mean (SD)**

35.7 (5.8)

37.0 (6.9)

0.4

Father’s nationality: Italian, number (%)

44 (86.3)

45 (88.2)

0.8

Educational level of the father, number (%)

  

0.6

Completed primary or secondary school

13 (25.5)

9 (17.6)

Completed high school

24 (47.1)

25 (49.0)

Bachelor degree or higher

14 (27.4)

17 (33.3)

Father employed, number (%)

49 (96.1)

49 (96.1)

1.0#

House ownership, number (%)

43 (81.1)

41 (78.8)

0.8

Extended family § , number (%)

1 (1.9)

2 (3.8)

0.6#

*only for employed mothers (n = 42 and 47).

**Father’s data available for 51 subjects in both groups.

§defines a family with extension beyond the nuclear family, including grandparents, aunts, uncles.

#Fisher exact test.

Knowledge, attitudes and intentions

The results concerning the effect of the video on knowledge and attitudes are shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Effect of the video on knowledge, attitudes and intentions in the early and late intervention group

 

Intervention at 1st month (early group, n = 52)

Intervention at 7th month (late group, n = 47)

p

Acquisition of new knowledge regarding

   

Start reading aloud early, number (%)

31 (59.6)

11 (23.4)

<0.001

Start playing music early, number (%)

22 (42.3)

17 (36.2)

0.5

Parental socialization, number (%)

3 (5.8)

1 (2.1)

0.6

Infant socialization, number (%)

7 (13.5)

0

0.01#

Acquisition of positive attitudes towards

   

Start reading aloud early, number (%)

5 (9.6)

15 (31.9)

<0.01

Start playing music early, number (%)

4 (7.7)

17 (36.2)

<0.001

Parental socialization, number (%)

1 (1.9)

7 (14.9)

0.03#

Infant socialization, number (%)

3 (5.8)

5 (10.6)

0.5#

Influence on parental intentions, “Yes”, number (%)

43 (82.7)

41 (87.2)

0.5

If yes in which field:

   

Start reading aloud early

27 (62.8)

26 (63.4)

0.95

Start playing music early

25 (58.1)

27 (65.9)

0.5

Parental socialization

3 (7.0)

7 (17.1)

0.2#

Infant socialization

6 (14.0)

7 (17.1)

0.7

#Fisher exact test.

Parents included in the early administration group more frequently reported a gain in knowledge while parents in the late group more frequently reported a change in their attitudes. In particular, a statistically significant difference between groups in favor of the early group was found for the acquisition of new knowledge regarding the importance of early reading aloud (p < 0.001) and of infant socialization (p = 0.01, Fisher exact test). Conversely, a significant difference between groups in favor of the late intervention group was found for the acquisition of positive attitudes towards early reading aloud (p < 0.01), early exposure to music (p < 0.001) and parental socialization (p = 0.03, Fisher exact test). The video was perceived by the majority of the interviewed as effective in modifying their intentions (82.7% in the early intervention group vs. 87.2% in the late intervention group, p = 0.5), especially with regards to reading aloud and exposure to music, but with no statistically significant difference between the groups (Table 2).

The study outcomes were not affected by either maternal education or by any other socio-demographic factor at multivariate analysis.

Assessment of how the video was used and on feelings elicited

The DVD was watched mainly by both parents together (59.6% in the early group and 57.4% in the late group, p = 0.8). The situations described in the video were judged as very realistic by 81% of the parents interviewed in both group. Seventy-three percent in the early group and 63.8% in the late group thought the length of the video was adequate (p = 0.3), while it was too short for 26.9% and 29.8% of the respondents, respectively. Only three subjects in the late group (6.4%) defined the video as too long. Parents liked the video much or fairly in 100% of cases in the early group vs. 91.5% in the late group (p = 0.05, Fisher exact test), and the contents were judged to be useful (very or somewhat) by 88.5% and 78.7% of the interviewed respectively (p = 0.2). Home visits were well accepted by parents and 100% of them in the early and 93.6% in the late group thought they had been useful (p = 0.1, Fisher exact test). Thirty-six percent of parents watched the video more than once in both groups (p = 1.0). Consequently, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for all of the above mentioned answers.Figure 1 describes the feelings elicited by the vision of the video. Parents in the late group felt more frequently a sense of competence compared to parents in early group (p < 0.001) while no difference was found between the two groups for what concerns the other feelings.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Feelings elicited by the video.

Parents provided some suggestions on the best way to watch the video, the main ones being to watch the video also before birth and to watch it together with other family members and other parents, and possibly with the support of a professional.

Discussion

Our study was aimed at assessing the optimal timing of administration to first-time parents of a video addressing practices that may positively influence child development and parent–child interactions. To our knowledge, there are no other studies exploring the optimal timing of administration of visual aids in parenting programs during the first year of life. We acknowledge that our study cannot fully address the many factors that may influence parental acceptance of a video, let alone their knowledge, attitudes and intentions. Most importantly, our findings rely on what parents report, and we were not able to assess change in actual parenting practices. However, we were able to evaluate changes in parental knowledge, attitudes and intentions, and we can reasonably assume, based on behavioural change theories [35] that modifications in these domains can influence parental practices later on.

Our findings suggest that the video has greater effect on parental knowledge when administered within the first month of age of the baby, and on attitudes when administered at seven months. The most likely explanation for this finding is that parents between the first and the seventh months are exposed anyway, to some extent, to information on these practices, which are becoming increasingly popular in Italy [36], and that the video in fact provides extra support to parental attitudes when seen at a later stage, in close correspondence to the period when such practices are expected to start. This concerns early reading and music in particular, but also early socialization between infants and their parents, which is likely to be perceived as important only after the first months of the baby’s life, when parents’ attention is more focused on primary needs such as feeding. In any case, the video seems to modify intentions in the majority of the parents irrespective of the time.

The fact that parents in the late administration group felt more frequently a sense of competence after looking at the video is not surprising since by the seventh month most of them would have overcome the feelings of lack of self-confidence which are common among parents during the first month of life of their first baby.

Conclusions

Our results support the idea that audiovisual materials, if properly designed and administered, can be an effective complementary tool in programs aimed at supporting parents, particularly when dealing with their first baby [8, 9, 19]. They also provide useful insight about the differential benefits of using such visual aids at different times during the first year of the baby. In this respect, the importance of an appropriate setting of administration, ideally through a home visit as in our study, cannot be overlooked, as it allows for sufficient time to introduce the video and its purpose [9, 10, 25, 37] and contribute to making parents feel more at ease. This aspect may be even more important when dealing with population groups which, due to specific cultural or social reasons, are more difficult to reach out to and yet are those that would yield the greatest benefit from such interventions [36, 3840].

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The study was part of a Research Project (n° 60/07) funded with internal funds by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health - IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste, Italy.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute for Maternal and Child Health – IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Via dell’Istria 65/1, 34137 Trieste, Italy
(2)
Centro per la Salute del Bambino, Trieste, Italy

References

  1. Walker SP, Wachs TD, Grantham-McGregor S, Black MM, Nelson CA, Huffman SL, Baker-Henningham H, Chang SM, Hamadani JD, Lozoff B, Gardner JM, Powell CA, Rahman A, Richter L: Inequality in early childhood: risk and protective factors for early child development. Lancet. 2011, 378: 1325-1338. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60555-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow J: Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Parent Training in Improving Behaviour of Children. 1999, Oxford: Health Services Research UnitGoogle Scholar
  3. Gwynne K, Blick BA, Duffy GM: Pilot evaluation of an early intervention programme for children at risk. J Paediatr Child Health. 2009, 45: 118-124. 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2008.01439.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kendrick D, Elkan R, Hewitt M, Dewey M, Blair M, Robinson J, Williams D, Brummell K: Does home visiting improve parenting and the quality of the home environment? a systematic review and meta analysis. Arch Dis Child. 2000, 82: 443-451. 10.1136/adc.82.6.443.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Engle PL, Fernald LC, Alderman H, Behrman J, O'Gara C, Yousafzai A, de Mello MC, Hidrobo M, Ulkuer N, Ertem I, Iltus S, Global Child Development Steering Group: Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet. 2011, 378: 1339-1353. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60889-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Howard KS, Brooks-Gunn J: The role of home-visiting programs in preventing child abuse and neglect. Future Child. 2009, 19: 119-146. 10.1353/foc.0.0032.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Love JM, Chazan-Cohen R, Raikes H, Brooks-Gunn J: What makes a difference: early head start evaluation findings in a developmental context. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2013, 78 (vii-viii): 1-173.Google Scholar
  8. Häggman-Laitila A, Seppänen R, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K, Pietilä AM: Benefits of video training on families’ health and interaction: evaluation based on follow-up visits. J Clin Nurs. 2010, 19: 3504-3515. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03241.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawrence PJ, Davies B, Ramchandani PG: Using video feedback to improve early father-infant interaction: a pilot study. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013, 18: 61-71. 10.1177/1359104512437210.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Moss E, Dubois-Comtois K, Cyr C, Tarabulsy GM, St-Laurent D, Bernier A: Efficacy of a home-visiting intervention aimed at improving maternal sensitivity, child attachment, and behavioral outcomes for maltreated children: a randomized control trial. Dev Psychopathol. 2011, 23: 195-210. 10.1017/S0954579410000738.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Crisp BR, Lister PG: Child protection and public health: nurses’ responsibilities. J Adv Nurs. 2004, 47: 656-663. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03154.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Long A, McCarney S, Smyth G, Magorrian N, Dillon A: The effectiveness of parenting programmes facilitated by health visitors. J Adv Nurs. 2001, 34: 611-620. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01790.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Onyskiw JE: Health and use of health services of children exposed to violence in their families. Can J Public Health. 2002, 93: 416-420.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Laflamme MR, Wilcox DC, Sullivan J, Schadow G, Lindbergh D, Warvel J, Buchanan H, Ising T, Abernathy G, Perkins SM, Daggy J, Frankel RM, Dexter P, McDonald CJ, Weiner M: A pilot study of usefulness of clinician-patient videoconferencing for making routine medical decisions in the nursing home. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005, 53: 1380-1385. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53422.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Secco L, Woodgate R, Ateah C: Review: self help, media-based therapy is effective for behaviour problems in children. Evid Based Nurs. 2002, 5: 11-10.1136/ebn.5.1.11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilkinson N, Ang RP, Goh DH: Online video game therapy for mental health concerns: a review. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2008, 54: 370-382. 10.1177/0020764008091659.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Groeneveld MG, Vermeer HJ, van Ijzendoorn MH, Linting M: Enhancing home-based child care quality through video-feedback intervention: a randomized controlled trial. J Fam Psychol. 2011, 25: 86-96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mendelsohn AL, Dreyer BP, Flynn V, Tomopoulos S, Rovira I, Tineo W, Pebenito C, Torres C, Torres H, Nixon AF: Use of videotaped interactions during pediatric well-child care to promote child development: a randomized, controlled trial. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005, 26: 34-41.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Mendelsohn AL, Valdez PT, Flynn V, Foley GM, Berkule SB, Tomopoulos S, Fierman AH, Tineo W, Dreyer BP: Use of videotaped interactions during pediatric well-child care: impact at 33 months on parenting and on child development. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2007, 28: 206-212. 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3180324d87.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Mendelsohn AL, Dreyer BP, Brockmeyer CA, Berkule-Silberman SB, Huberman HS, Tomopoulos S: Randomized controlled trial of primary care pediatric parenting programs: effect on reduced media exposure in infants, mediated through enhanced parent–child interaction. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011, 165: 42-48.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Sices L, Drotar D, Keilman A, Kirchner HL, Roberts D, Stancin T: Communication about child development during well-child visits: impact of video Parents’ evaluation of developmental status screener with or without an informational video. Pediatrics. 2008, 122: e1091-e1099. 10.1542/peds.2008-1773.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Alsada LH, Sigal MJ, Limeback H, Fiege J, Kulkarni GV: Development and testing of an audio-visual aid for improving infant oral health through primary caregiver education. J Can Dent Assoc. 2005, 71 (241): 241a-241 h.Google Scholar
  23. Hieftje K, Edelman EJ, Camenga DR, Fiellin LE: Electronic media-based health interventions promoting behavior change in youth: a systematic review. JAMA Pediatr. 2013, 167: 574-580. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1095.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Ismail AI, Ondersma S, Jedele JM, Little RJ, Lepkowski JM: Evaluation of a brief tailored motivational intervention to prevent early childhood caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2011, 39: 433-448. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00613.x.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Kingston G, Gray MA, Williams G: A critical review of the evidence on the use of videotapes or DVD to promote patient compliance with home programmes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010, 5: 153-163. 10.3109/17483101003671709.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, Guttentag C: A responsive parenting intervention: the optimal timing across early childhood for impacting maternal behaviours and child outcomes. Dev Psychol. 2008, 44: 1335-1353.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Bateson K, Delaney J, Pybus R: Meeting expectations: the pilot evaluation of the Solihull approach parenting group. Community Practice. 2008, 81: 28-31.Google Scholar
  28. Bradley RH, McKelvey LM, Whiteside-Mansell L: Does the quality of stimulation and support in the home environment moderate the effect of early education programs?. Child Dev. 2011, 82: 2110-2122. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01659.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Duursma E, Augustyn M, Zuckerman B: Reading aloud to children: the evidence. Arch Dis Child. 2008, 93: 554-557. 10.1136/adc.2006.106336.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Toffol G, Melloni M, Cagnin R, Sanzovo M, Giacobbi L, Montini C: Effectiveness study of the project “Nati per Leggere”. Quaderni ACP. 2011, 5: 195-201.Google Scholar
  31. Walworth D: Effects of developmental music groups for parents and premature or typical infants under two years on parental responsiveness and children social development. J Music Ther. 2009, 46: 32-52. 10.1093/jmt/46.1.32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamblin AC: Evaluation and Control of Training. 1974, London: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  33. Bloom BS: Tassonomia degli obiettivi educativi-La classificazione delle mete dell’educazione. 1986, Giunti & Lisciani: FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  34. Colasanti AR, Mastromarino M: Ascolto attivo. 1994, IFREP: RomaGoogle Scholar
  35. Fishbein M, Triandis HC, Kanfer FH, Becker M, Middlestadt SE, Eichler A: Factors influencing behavior and behavior change. Handbook of health psychology. Edited by: Baum A, Revenson TA, Singer JE. 2001, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-17.Google Scholar
  36. Tamburlini G, Manetti S, Toffol G: Primary health care and early childhood development. Lancet. 2011, 378: e16-View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Elkan R, Kendrick D, Hewitt M, Robinson JJA, Tolley K, Blair M, Dewey M, Williams D, Brummell K: The effectiveness of domiciliary health visiting: a systematic review of international studies and a selective review of the British literature. Health Technol Assess. 2000, 4 (i-v): 1-339.Google Scholar
  38. Drummond JE, Weir AE, Kysela GM: Home visitation practice: models, documentation and evaluation. Public Health Nurs. 2002, 19: 21-29. 10.1046/j.1525-1446.2002.19004.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Skeen S, Tomlinson M: A public health approach to preventing child abuse in low- and middle-income countries: a call for action. Int J Psychol. 2013, 48: 108-116. 10.1080/00207594.2012.737467.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. World Health Organization: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. 2008, Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  41. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/14/222/prepub

Copyright

© Roia et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement