Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 18, 2026
Universal Screening for Prevention of Reading, Writing, and Math Disabilities in Spanish
Published on: July 18, 2020
Four-year-old outcomes of a universal infant-toddler shared reading intervention: the let's read trial
Sharon Goldfeld1, Jon Quach, Ruth Nicholls
1Royal Children’s Hospital, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. sharon.goldfeld@rch.org.au
Insights
A low-intensity literacy program for parents did not improve child literacy or language skills by age 4. The "Let's Read" program, delivered via well-child services, showed no significant benefits in this study.
Area of Science:
- Child Development
- Public Health Interventions
- Early Literacy
Background:
- Early literacy and language skills are crucial for a child's development and future academic success.
- Low-intensity literacy promotion programs delivered through universal services offer a scalable approach to support parents.
- Targeting interventions to disadvantaged areas aims to reduce educational disparities.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effects of the "Let's Read" literacy promotion program on emergent literacy and language skills in young children.
- To determine if a low-intensity program delivered via universal well-child services can positively impact child development.
- To assess the program's effectiveness when targeted to parents in relatively disadvantaged areas.
Main Methods:
- A population-based, cluster randomized controlled trial involving maternal and child health centers in Melbourne, Australia.
- Parents attending well-child appointments were invited to participate, with the "Let's Read" program delivered at 4, 12, 18, and 42 months.
- Child emergent literacy (intrasyllabic, phonemic, sound/letter knowledge) and language (core, receptive, expressive) were measured at 4 years of age.
Main Results:
- No significant differences were found in emergent literacy skills between the intervention and control groups at 4 years of age.
- Similarly, no statistically significant improvements were observed in core, receptive, or expressive language scores for children in the intervention group.
- The program, delivered via primary care, did not lead to enhanced uptake of literacy activities.
Conclusions:
- The "Let's Read" program, a low-intensity literacy promotion initiative, did not yield the anticipated benefits for child literacy and language development.
- Population-wide primary care interventions may require higher intensity or different delivery methods to achieve significant developmental gains.
- Even when targeted to disadvantaged areas, the program's impact on literacy and language was not significant.
Objective:
To determine the emergent literacy and language effects of a low-intensity literacy promotion program (Let's Read) provided via universal well-child services to parents during the first 4 years of their child's life.
Design:
Population-based, cluster randomized controlled trial performed between March 1, 2006, and December 10, 2010.
Setting:
Maternal and child health centers (clusters) in 5 relatively disadvantaged local government areas in Melbourne, Australia.
Participants:
All parents attending their 4-week well-child appointments in participating centers were invited to take part in the study.
Intervention:
The Let's Read program was delivered at 4, 12, 18, and 42 months during universal well-child care visits.
Main Outcome Measure:
Child emergent literacy skills (intrasyllabic, phonemic, and sound/letter knowledge) and language (core, receptive, and expressive), measured at 4 years of age.
Results:
A total of 630 parents participated, with 365 children in 32 intervention clusters and 265 children in 33 control clusters; 563 children (89.4%) were retained in the study to 4 years of age. The adjusted mean differences (intervention minus control) for emergent literacy was 0.2 (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.6; P = .29) for intrasyllabic units, 0.05 (95% CI, -0.4 to 0.5; P = .85) for phonemic awareness, and 0.1 (95% CI, -1.5 to 1.6; P = .92) for letter knowledge. For language, the differences were 1.6 (95% CI, -1.1 to 4.3; P = .25) for core, 0.8 (95% CI, -2.0 to 3.7; P = .56) for receptive, and 1.4 (95% CI, -1.4 to 4.2; P = .32) for expressive scores.
Conclusion:
This population-wide primary care literacy promotion and book distribution program provided neither the anticipated benefits to literacy and language nor enhanced uptake of literacy activities at 4 years of age, even when targeted to relatively disadvantaged areas.
Trial Registration:
isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN04602902.
