Improving Parental Health Literacy in Primary Caregivers of 0- to 3-Year-Old Children Through a WeChat Official Account: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Parental health literacy is important to children's health and development, especially in the first 3 years. However, few studies have explored effective intervention strategies to improve parental literacy. Objective: This study aimed to determine the effects of a WeChat official account (WOA)-based intervention on parental health literacy of primary caregivers of children aged 0-3 years. Methods: This cluster randomized controlled trial enrolled 1332 caregiver-child dyads from all 13 community health centers (CHCs) in Minhang District, Shanghai, China, between April 2020 and April 2021. Participants in intervention CHCs received purposefully designed videos via a WOA, which automatically recorded the times of watching for each participant, supplemented with reading materials from other trusted web-based sources. The contents of the videos were constructed in accordance with the comprehensive parental health literacy model of WHO (World Health Organization)/Europe (WHO/Europe). Participants in control CHCs received printed materials similar to the intervention group. All the participants were followed up for 9 months. Both groups could access routine child health services as usual during follow-up. The primary outcome was parental health literacy measured by a validated instrument, the Chinese Parental Health Literacy Questionnaire (CPHLQ) of children aged 0-3 years. Secondary outcomes included parenting behaviors and children's health outcomes. We used the generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) for data analyses and performed different subgroup analyses. The β coefficient, risk ratio (RR), and their 95% CI were used to assess the intervention's effect. Results: After the 9-month intervention, 69.4% (518/746) of caregivers had watched at least 1 video. Participants in the intervention group had higher CPHLQ total scores (β=2.51, 95% CI 0.12-4.91) and higher psychological scores (β=1.63, 95% CI 0.16-3.10) than those in the control group. The intervention group also reported a higher rate of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at 6 months (38.9% vs 23.44%; RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.07-3.38) and a higher awareness rate of vitamin D supplementation for infants younger than 6 months (76.7% vs 70.5%; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06-1.82). No significant effects were detected for the physical score on the CPHLQ, breastfeeding rate, routine checkup rate, and children's health outcomes. Furthermore, despite slight subgroup differences in the intervention's effects on the total CPHLQ score and EBF rate, no interaction effect was observed between these subgroup factors and intervention factors. Conclusions: Using a WHO literacy model-based health intervention through a WOA has the potential of improving parental health literacy and EBF rates at 6 months. However, innovative strategies and evidence-based content are required to engage more participants and achieve better intervention outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».