Improving Parental Health Literacy in Primary Caregivers of 0- to 3-Year-Old Children Through a WeChat Official Account: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".