ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04609553Updated Dec 9, 2025Results posted

Literacy Promotion for Latinos Study

An interventional study of Usual care including ROR and Text messages in Language Development, Behavior, Child and Parenting, sponsored by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-12-09.

Sponsored by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
662
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study tests the extent to which tailored outreach text messages that provide a cue to action and an intervention that enhances access to poverty-reducing resources, in combination with standard primary care literacy promotion, can improve child language and social- emotional skill acquisition among low-income Latino children.

Read the detailed description

The investigators propose a 3 arm randomized clinical trial to test strategies designed to enhance literacy promotion for low-income Latino families. The investigators will recruit 630 parent-child dyads from community health centers that serve low-income, Latino families. Parents will be randomly assigned to one of 3 arms (1) Reach Out and Read (ROR) an evidence-based literacy promotion intervention that is widely disseminated in primary care; (2) ROR plus tailored outreach text messages; (3) ROR plus tailored outreach text messages and enhanced access to poverty-reducing resources using a widely disseminated model that simplifies access and provides care coordination. In Aim 1, the investigators will test their hypotheses that (1) children in the ROR plus text message arm will have higher scores on validated assessments of language and social-emotional development compared to standard ROR alone and (2) children who receive both text messages and enhanced access to poverty-reducing resources will have higher scores compared to the other two arms. In Aim 2, the investigators will examine mechanisms that underlie the effects of the interventions. In Aim 3, the investigators will use mixed methods to conduct a process evaluation to understand how the interventions are implemented, identify barriers, facilitators, and modifications, and explore parents' experiences with the interventions.

02

Conditions studied

  • Language Development
  • Behavior, Child
  • Parenting
  • Literacy

Keywords

  • literacy promotion, early childhood, Latino, primary care
03

In context

Child Behavior

224 studies on the registry are indexed under Child Behavior; 41 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 662 is above the median of 140 across 197 interventional studies indexed under Child Behavior.

Browse Child Behavior studies →

Lead sponsor

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey is the lead sponsor of 506 studies on the registry; 131 are open to participants now.

Of its 39 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 31 (79%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Primary caregiver of a child age 6 months to 12 months
  • Identifies as Latino/a/x
  • Primary language English or Spanish
  • Cell phone ownership
  • Age 18 years or older
  • Willing to receive text messages
  • Willing to accept being placed into one of three study groups

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Children with multiple congenital anomalies or genetic disorders and previously identified developmental delays
  • Individuals unable to provide
  • Intent to discontinue care at current pediatric clinic / recruitment site
  • Discontinued care at one of the three pediatric clinics / recruitment sites
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
662 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Usual care including ROR

    Literacy promotion is a pediatric standard of care. Participants in this group will receive usual care that includes ROR, a primary care literacy promotion intervention.

    Behavioral: Usual care including ROR

  • Experimental
    ROR plus text messages

    In addition to ROR, participants will receive three text messages per week, plus one interactive follow-up message per month, for the study period with scheduled breaks.

    Behavioral: Usual care including ROR · Behavioral: Text messages

  • Experimental
    ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources

    In addition to ROR and text messages, participants will be referred to a county-based single point of entry system for referrals to community resources. This system simplifies access to poverty-reducing resources by creating a centralized access point, maintaining an updated data base of resources with existing capacity to support families, and providing case management.

    Behavioral: Usual care including ROR · Behavioral: Text messages · Behavioral: Connection to community resources

Interventions

  • BehavioralUsual care including ROR

    Usual care which includes ROR.

  • BehavioralText messages

    3 text messages per week and one interactive text per month.

  • BehavioralConnection to community resources

    Referral to a non-profit that connects families with community resources and provides families with case management.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Child Language Skills

    Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test - Fourth Edition (EOWPVT-4) Spanish-Bilingual - Assesses expressive language skills in English and Spanish. This multiple-choice format test consists of 190 items presented in developmental sequence; age-related starting points and cut-off points ensure that only a subset of items is administered. Raw scores are converted into standard scores (M=100, SD=15). Higher scores denote stronger language skills, with possible standard scores ranging between 55 and 145.

    Time frame: 18-month follow-up

  2. Child Communicative Skills

    Caregiver report of non-verbal communication and early expressive language assessed using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories. The Words \& Gestures short form is an 89-word vocabulary checklist with separate columns for comprehension and production for children 8-18 months. The Words \& Sentences versions contain a 100-word productive vocabulary checklist and a question about combining words for children 16-30 months. Scores are summed and higher scores denote stronger skills.

    Time frame: 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

  3. Child Social-emotional Skills

    Child's social-emotional skills were assessed with the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers (DECA-I/T), which has 2 caregiver-report forms: an infant form (1-18 months) that includes Attachment/Relationships and Initiative subscales, and a toddler form (18-36 months) that includes Attachment/Relationships, Initiative, and Self-Regulation subscales. Scores are standardized on a T-distribution (M=50; SD=10). The Total Protective Factors score is calculated by adding subscale T-scores. T-scores of 60+ indicate an area strength, and T-scores of 40- indicate an area need.

    Time frame: Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

  4. Caregiver Cognitive Stimulation

    The StimQ2 is a caregiver-reported measure of cognitive stimulation for children that includes domains on the home literacy environment (Reading scale) and responsiveness (Parental Verbal Responsiveness scale). The Reading scale includes 3 subdimensions (Book Reading Quantity, Diversity of Content, Book Reading Quality). Scores on the Reading scale range from 0 to 19. The Parental Verbal Responsiveness scale is composed of two subdimensions (Everyday Routines and Play and Pretend). Scores range from 0 to 15. Higher scores indicate more cognitive stimulation. The Reading scale was completed at baseline, the 9-month follow-up, and the 18-month follow-up. The Parent Verbal Responsiveness scale was completed at the 9-month follow-up and the18-month follow-up.

    Time frame: Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

  5. Dialogic Reading Behavior

    The DialogPR is a caregiver report measure of shared reading quality. Score range from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating more interactive reading.

    Time frame: 9-month follow-up

  6. Caregiver Discipline Strategies

    This questionnaire was modified from the National Survey of Early Childhood Health and asks two questions about verbal and physical discipline. Scores range from 0 to 6 and higher scores indicate harsher discipline strategies.

    Time frame: 18-month follow-up

Secondary outcomes

  1. Caregiver Attitudes About Reading

    The Parent Reading Belief Inventory is a caregiver reported measure of attitudes about reading with children that included positive affect (scores range from 0 to 33). Higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes and greater knowledge.

    Time frame: 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

  2. Community Resource Participation

    Community resource participation was measured via the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), a series of questions that asks about caregiver and child participation in different types of community resources (e.g. food/nutrition support, income support, childcare assistance, etc.). Possible scores range from 0 to 17, with higher scores indicating more involvement in community resources.

    Time frame: Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

  3. Caregiver-clinician Relationship

    The Physician-Parent Communication Survey is a caregiver reported measure of the caregiver-clinician relationship. We analyzed the interest subscale. The interest subscale includes 6 items are scored from 1 to 8. Scores from each item are averaged; thus total possible scores range from 1-8, with higher scores indicating stronger relationships.

    Time frame: Baseline; 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

  4. Social Needs and Stress

    Caregiver report of social needs and stressors was assessed via the Local Inventory of Needs and Knowledge (LINK) survey. Caregivers rate statements on social needs and stress from 0 to 4 with higher scores indicating greater needs and stress. Possible scores range from 0 to 16 with higher scores indicating greater needs and economic stress.

    Time frame: Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

  5. Parent Stress

    The Parental Stress Scale is an eighteen-item measure that assesses parental stress. Scores range from 18 to 90 with higher scores indicating greater stress.

    Time frame: Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

  6. Child Media Use

    The ScreenQ is a caregiver report measure of media use in children. Scores range from 0 to 26 with higher score indicating more media use.

    Time frame: Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up

Other outcomes

  1. ROR Receipt

    Caregiver's report of receipt of literacy promotion components during their previous healthcare visit.

    Time frame: Baseline; 9-month follow up; 18-month follow up

  2. Observed Parent-child Interactions

    Observation of parent-child interactions during shared reading and free play; observations will be coded based on DialogPR items

    Time frame: 9-month follow up

07

Results

Posted Nov 25, 2025

Participant flow

Participants were recruited from three health centers in central New Jersey between November 2020 and June 2023.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Started209210211
9-month follow up168173178
Completed170169178
Not completed394133
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up273124
Withdrew: Discontinued12109

Outcome measures

PrimaryChild Language Skills

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test - Fourth Edition (EOWPVT-4) Spanish-Bilingual - Assesses expressive language skills in English and Spanish. This multiple-choice format test consists of 190 items presented in developmental sequence; age-related starting points and cut-off points ensure that only a subset of items is administered. Raw scores are converted into standard scores (M=100, SD=15). Higher scores denote stronger language skills, with possible standard scores ranging between 55 and 145.

Time frame:
18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Child Language Skills
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Child Language Skills2.1 ± 4.22.3 ± 4.22.6 ± 4.4
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.64 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.46 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
PrimaryChild Communicative Skills

Caregiver report of non-verbal communication and early expressive language assessed using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories. The Words \& Gestures short form is an 89-word vocabulary checklist with separate columns for comprehension and production for children 8-18 months. The Words \& Sentences versions contain a 100-word productive vocabulary checklist and a question about combining words for children 16-30 months. Scores are summed and higher scores denote stronger skills.

Time frame:
9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Child Communicative Skills
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
9-month follow-up12.5 ± 13.713.5 ± 14.415.7 ± 20.9
18-month follow-up44.5 ± 32.250.4 ± 30.846.6 ± 32.1
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.84 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.82 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.001 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.16 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
PrimaryChild Social-emotional Skills

Child's social-emotional skills were assessed with the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers (DECA-I/T), which has 2 caregiver-report forms: an infant form (1-18 months) that includes Attachment/Relationships and Initiative subscales, and a toddler form (18-36 months) that includes Attachment/Relationships, Initiative, and Self-Regulation subscales. Scores are standardized on a T-distribution (M=50; SD=10). The Total Protective Factors score is calculated by adding subscale T-scores. T-scores of 60+ indicate an area strength, and T-scores of 40- indicate an area need.

Time frame:
Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · T-score
Child Social-emotional Skills
T-scoreUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Baseline95.7 ± 18.393.8 ± 17.894.5 ± 18.3
9-month follow-up88.4 ± 17.287.9 ± 19.291.4 ± 18.9
18-month follow-up133.5 ± 26.5138.4 ± 28.4140.6 ± 24.6
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.93 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.04 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.08 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.03 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
PrimaryCaregiver Cognitive Stimulation

The StimQ2 is a caregiver-reported measure of cognitive stimulation for children that includes domains on the home literacy environment (Reading scale) and responsiveness (Parental Verbal Responsiveness scale). The Reading scale includes 3 subdimensions (Book Reading Quantity, Diversity of Content, Book Reading Quality). Scores on the Reading scale range from 0 to 19. The Parental Verbal Responsiveness scale is composed of two subdimensions (Everyday Routines and Play and Pretend). Scores range from 0 to 15. Higher scores indicate more cognitive stimulation. The Reading scale was completed at baseline, the 9-month follow-up, and the 18-month follow-up. The Parent Verbal Responsiveness scale was completed at the 9-month follow-up and the18-month follow-up.

Time frame:
Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Caregiver Cognitive Stimulation
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Baseline (Reading)4.5 ± 3.94.0 ± 3.94.2 ± 3.9
9-month follow-up (Reading)6.0 ± 3.86.7 ± 3.56.1 ± 3.8
18-month follow-up (Reading)6.6 ± 4.26.8 ± 4.06.7 ± 4.1
9-month follow-up (Parent Verbal Responsiveness)5.5 ± 2.35.8 ± 2.16.1 ± 2.0
18-month follow-up (Parent Verbal Responsiveness)6.5 ± 1.96.4 ± 2.16.8 ± 1.9
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.002 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.80 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.79 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.96 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.22 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = <0.001 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.96 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.12 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
PrimaryDialogic Reading Behavior

The DialogPR is a caregiver report measure of shared reading quality. Score range from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating more interactive reading.

Time frame:
9-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Dialogic Reading Behavior
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Dialogic Reading Behavior16.7 ± 10.018.1 ± 8.817.3 ± 10.1
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.78 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.96 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
PrimaryCaregiver Discipline Strategies

This questionnaire was modified from the National Survey of Early Childhood Health and asks two questions about verbal and physical discipline. Scores range from 0 to 6 and higher scores indicate harsher discipline strategies.

Time frame:
18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Caregiver Discipline Strategies
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Caregiver Discipline Strategies1.9 ± 1.32.0 ± 1.42.1 ± 1.4
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.78 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.96 (p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.)
SecondaryCaregiver Attitudes About Reading

The Parent Reading Belief Inventory is a caregiver reported measure of attitudes about reading with children that included positive affect (scores range from 0 to 33). Higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes and greater knowledge.

Time frame:
9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Caregiver Attitudes About Reading
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
9-month follow-up21.7 ± 3.921.6 ± 3.122.1 ± 3.3
18-month follow-up20.1 ± 3.420.1 ± 2.919.8 ± 2.9
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.80 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.06 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.81 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.08 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
SecondaryCommunity Resource Participation

Community resource participation was measured via the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), a series of questions that asks about caregiver and child participation in different types of community resources (e.g. food/nutrition support, income support, childcare assistance, etc.). Possible scores range from 0 to 17, with higher scores indicating more involvement in community resources.

Time frame:
Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Community Resource Participation
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Baseline2.6 ± 1.22.5 ± 1.22.7 ± 1.2
9-month follow-up2.4 ± 1.22.3 ± 1.12.5 ± 1.2
18-month follow-up2.4 ± 1.02.4 ± 1.02.5 ± 1.1
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.07 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.91 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.39 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.10 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
SecondaryCaregiver-clinician Relationship

The Physician-Parent Communication Survey is a caregiver reported measure of the caregiver-clinician relationship. We analyzed the interest subscale. The interest subscale includes 6 items are scored from 1 to 8. Scores from each item are averaged; thus total possible scores range from 1-8, with higher scores indicating stronger relationships.

Time frame:
Baseline; 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Caregiver-clinician Relationship
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Baseline5.8 ± 1.95.7 ± 1.95.5 ± 2.1
9-month follow-up5.3 ± 2.05.3 ± 2.15.4 ± 2.0
18-month follow-up4.9 ± 2.15.1 ± 2.14.8 ± 2.1
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.19 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.18 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.18 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.45 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
SecondarySocial Needs and Stress

Caregiver report of social needs and stressors was assessed via the Local Inventory of Needs and Knowledge (LINK) survey. Caregivers rate statements on social needs and stress from 0 to 4 with higher scores indicating greater needs and stress. Possible scores range from 0 to 16 with higher scores indicating greater needs and economic stress.

Time frame:
Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Social Needs and Stress
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Baseline2.6 ± 1.12.7 ± 2.02.7 ± 1.1
9-month follow-up2.8 ± 1.22.6 ± 1.22.8 ± 1.2
18-month follow-up2.8 ± 1.22.7 ± 1.22.9 ± 1.2
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = <.001 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.68 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.16 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.39 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
SecondaryParent Stress

The Parental Stress Scale is an eighteen-item measure that assesses parental stress. Scores range from 18 to 90 with higher scores indicating greater stress.

Time frame:
Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Parent Stress
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Baseline34.4 ± 7.935.1 ± 7.834.8 ± 7.5
9-month follow-up34.9 ± 7.735.8 ± 8.634.7 ± 8.0
18-month follow-up34.9 ± 7.534.5 ± 8.434.9 ± 7.6
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.87 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.14 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.007 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.34 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
SecondaryChild Media Use

The ScreenQ is a caregiver report measure of media use in children. Scores range from 0 to 26 with higher score indicating more media use.

Time frame:
Baseline, 9-month follow-up, 18-month follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Child Media Use
score on a scaleUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Baseline4.9 ± 3.24.7 ± 2.74.6 ± 2.9
9-month follow-up5.2 ± 2.65.1 ± 2.74.9 ± 2.6
18-month follow-up5.2 ± 2.25.1 ± 2.34.9 ± 2.2
Statistical analysis
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.99 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.07 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages · ANOVA · p = 0.41 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
  • Usual care including ROR vs ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources · ANOVA · p = 0.03 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.)
Other pre-specifiedROR Receipt

Caregiver's report of receipt of literacy promotion components during their previous healthcare visit.

Time frame:
Baseline; 9-month follow up; 18-month follow up
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
ROR Receipt
ParticipantsUsual care including RORROR plus text messagesROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources
Baseline 0 components515763
Baseline 1 component525342
Baseline 2 components737372
Baseline 3 components332734
9-month follow-up 0 componenets645756
9-month follow up 1 component364048
9-month follow-up 2 components455246
9-month follow-up 3 components232428
18-month follow-up 0 components705161
18-month follow-up 1 component315051
18-month follow-up 2 components453642
18-month follow-up 3 components243224
Other pre-specifiedObserved Parent-child Interactions

Observation of parent-child interactions during shared reading and free play; observations will be coded based on DialogPR items

Time frame:
9-month follow up

Results for this outcome have not been posted.

Adverse events

Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Usual care including ROR———
ROR plus text messages———
ROR plus text messages plus connection to community resources———

Baseline characteristics

The overall number of baseline participants represents the number of caregiver/child dyads in each arm.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Usual Care Including RORROR Plus Text MessagesROR Plus Text Messages Plus Connection to Community ResourcesTotal
Mean30.4 ± 6.431.5 ± 6.730.7 ± 5.931.0 ± 6.3
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(months)Usual Care Including RORROR Plus Text MessagesROR Plus Text Messages Plus Connection to Community ResourcesTotal
Mean7.8 ± 1.48.0 ± 1.58.1 ± 1.58.0 ± 1.5
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Usual Care Including RORROR Plus Text MessagesROR Plus Text Messages Plus Connection to Community ResourcesTotal
Female205207204616
Male43714
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Usual Care Including RORROR Plus Text MessagesROR Plus Text Messages Plus Connection to Community ResourcesTotal
Female92110117319
Male11710094311
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Usual Care Including RORROR Plus Text MessagesROR Plus Text Messages Plus Connection to Community ResourcesTotal
Hispanic or Latino209210211630
Not Hispanic or Latino0000
Unknown or Not Reported0000
Caregiver's Self-reported Rating of Ability to Speak English
Caregiver's Self-reported Rating of Ability to Speak English(Participants)Usual Care Including RORROR Plus Text MessagesROR Plus Text Messages Plus Connection to Community ResourcesTotal
Speaks Very Well25252777
Speaks Well295129109
Speaks Not Well787181230
Speaks Not at All766274212
Missing1102
Caregiver's Highest Level of Education
Caregiver's Highest Level of Education(Participants)Usual Care Including RORROR Plus Text MessagesROR Plus Text Messages Plus Connection to Community ResourcesTotal
< High School353336104
Some High School402941110
High School Graduate809575250
Some College26262577
≥ College graduate28263488
Missing0101
Caregiver Health Literacy Score
Caregiver Health Literacy Score(units on a scale)Usual Care Including RORROR Plus Text MessagesROR Plus Text Messages Plus Connection to Community ResourcesTotal
Mean15.7 ± 2.715.4 ± 2.815.9 ± 1.815.7 ± 2.5

7 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

1 site
  • Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
    New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Hemler JR, Jimenez ME, Crabtree BF, Mendelsohn AL, Devine KA, Pai S, Ramachandran U, Hudson SV, Mackie TI. A call for supplemental implementation strategy reporting guidelines to advance minority health: applying expanded specification and reporting recommendations to the Literacy Promotion for Latinos study. Implement Sci Commun. 2026 Jul 3. doi: 10.1186/s43058-026-00966-3. Online ahead of print. PubMed 42400022 ↗
  • Zanzoul S, Strickland PO, Mendelsohn AL, Malke K, Bator A, Hemler J, Jimenez ME. Stress and Infant Media Exposure During COVID-19: A Study Among Latino Families. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2024 Jan 1;45(1):e14-e20. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000001231. Epub 2023 Dec 21. PubMed 38127845 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Deidentified quantitative data and associated documentation may be made available to users conducting non-profit research under a written data-sharing agreement.

Supporting information: Study protocol

Time frame: Data will become available after the study is completed and primary study findings are published in peer-reviewed journals.

Access criteria: Researchers from accredited institutions may request access to the data for non-profit research. Permission and access will be granted on an ad hoc basis. Only deidentified data will be made available.

10

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Nov 2020 to primary completion in Dec 2024, 49 months.

Results were first posted in Nov 2025, 10 months after primary completion.

Of 140 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Child Behavior, half reached primary completion within 20 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 42. This study's 49 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 141 studies reached it within 20 months; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 41.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 21, 2020
First posted
Oct 30, 2020
StartActual
Nov 16, 2020
Primary completionActual
Dec 28, 2024
CompletionActual
Dec 28, 2024
Results first posted
Nov 25, 2025
Last update
Dec 9, 2025
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 9, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04609553
Responsible party
Manuel E. Jimenez, MD, MS (Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 30, 2020
Start date
Nov 16, 2020
Primary completion
Dec 28, 2024
Completion
Dec 28, 2024
Results posted
Nov 25, 2025
Last update
Dec 9, 2025

Study contacts

Manuel E Jimenez, MD, MS
principal investigator · Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion