https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8190-3161
Figures
Abstract
Background
Infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are at a heightened risk for language and literacy delays and disorders. Despite the well-established empirical support for early shared reading, the available evidence to date has been scant, revealing mixed results. This study sought to characterize current research on shared reading in the NICU using a scoping review methodology.
Methods
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed, written in the English language, focused on human infants in the NICU, and published between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2023. No population age range was applied, and quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods designs were considered. Database searches yielded 338 articles with only eight articles meeting eligibility criteria for inclusion.
Conclusion
In spite of a modest number of studies on this topic, utilizing limited methodologies, the evidence from this scoping review shows the benefits of shared reading for infants and their caregivers during their NICU stay. Expanding such efforts by embedding shared reading as part of standard practice is recommended.
Citation: Farran LK, Leslie SL, Brasher SN (2025) Promoting language and literacy through shared book reading in the NICU: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 20(3): e0318690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318690
Editor: Sanjoy Kumer Dey, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), BANGLADESH
Received: January 24, 2024; Accepted: January 21, 2025; Published: March 6, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Farran et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This research has been funded by a grant from the Deal Center for Early Language and Literacy to Lama K. Farran.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The ability to read is uniquely human and built on a foundation of oral language [1]. It begins very early in life and emerges from the back-and-forth communicative exchanges between infants and their caregivers (e.g., mother, father), especially in the context of shared book reading [2,3]. Mounting evidence suggests that the cause of reading disorders is multifactorial [4], with complex interactions among biological, ecological, and developmental influences playing a paramount role [5]. Therefore, attempts at early identification and intervention must take into account the multitude of factors–including protective and risk factors–that are paramount for a preventive model of reading and its disorders [6]. This is especially the case for infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), who come to the world with a host of risk factors (e.g., genetic, medical, environmental) that potentially stunt their development of language, negatively impacting their opportunities to develop adequate reading. Interventions such as shared reading in the NICU aimed at offsetting the risk for reading delays and disorders are thus considered protective and necessary. They constitute the focus of this article.
Currently, 1 in every 10 infants is born preterm (i.e., before the completion of 37-week gestation) [7]. While the number of preterm births in the United States decreased by 1% from 2021 to 2022, racial and ethnic differences in preterm births did not, particularly for Black women (14.6%), which is estimated to be 50% higher compared to White (9.4%) and Hispanic (10.1%) women, representing significant racial and ethnic disparities in preterm birth rates [8]. Infants who are born prematurely typically stay in the NICU, along with other infants who require intensive medical care (e.g., low birth weight, very low birth weight, and medically complex). These infants are at a heightened risk for delays and disorders across multiple developmental domains brought about by their medical condition, less-than-optimal NICU environment, and concomitant morbidity. Therefore, the language and reading input that infants receive from their caregivers and healthcare team (e.g., registered nurses, speech-language pathologists, physical therapists, occupational therapists) is foundational for supporting caregivers of NICU infants [9] and equipping these infants with social-emotional and cognitive skills that provide them with an advantage in their development toward adulthood [10–12], thereby offsetting the negative sequelae of their NICU stay. Through shared book reading, caregivers intuitively infuse language during their interactions with their infants, potentially improving children’s developmental outcomes in reading, cognition, and language in early childhood [13–21]. Similarly, the healthcare team in the NICU plays a foundational role in bolstering early childhood development through strategies aimed at supporting infant-mother attachment, as well as mothers’ emotions, empowerment, and participation in the care process [12].
The extant research indicates that shared book reading in the first year may be associated with future health and quality of life of caregivers and their infants across developmental domains [22,23], namely mental, emotional health, language, and literacy. Notably, shared book reading in the NICU has been shown to promote mother-infant bonding, decrease postnatal maternal stress, and encourage continued reading throughout childhood [8]. Despite the reported benefits of shared book reading interventions between parents and their infants in the NICU, the evidence to date has been limited, focusing on interventions that are brief in duration [24]. Thus, there is a need for changing the NICU environment to promote interventions that are effective and long lasting. One such change would be to embed shared book reading within routine developmental care in the NICU as standard practice. This would translate into capacity building from staff to caregivers during the NICU stay, potentially contributing to positive effects on language and literacy and increasing the sustainability of overall whole child outcomes.
This scoping review focuses on shared reading and examines interventions aimed at improving the outcomes of infants in the NICU. We examine the following research question: What is known from research about shared reading interventions in the NICU? First, we discuss key variables that directly impact shared reading, including the NICU environment and caregiver-infant interaction. We then review interventions and programs that address shared reading in the NICU directly, and end with strengths and limitations of the current research on this topic, as well as recommendations for future emphasis on translational research and implementation science.
NICU Environment
Infants born preterm, low birth weight ( < 2500 grams), very low birth (<1500 grams), acutely ill (e.g., sepsis, respiratory distress syndrome), and with congenital anomalies constitute the majority of neonatal admissions to the NICU [25]. While intended to be supportive of fragile infants, the NICU environment can also be described as a stressful environment filled with high- and mid-frequency sounds (e.g., monitors beeping, ventilator sounds, voices of staff and other families) [26] and isolating conditions for the infant (e.g., incubators) and families (e.g., feelings of alienation) [26]. Hospitalization in the NICU contributes to limited and impaired interaction between parents and their preterm infants due to stress and tension [27]. As a result, infants in the NICU receive low levels of language exposure and high levels of sound exposure, which have been linked with poorer growth, cognition, language and motor outcomes [28]. Conversely, research has found that increasing language exposure in the NICU is associated with better language outcomes in infants [29] and that the NICU can serve as a protective factor when focusing on responsive parenting and rich language and literacy input early in life [30].
Caregiver-infant interaction
Another factor that impacts infants and caregivers is caregiver-infant interactions, which is paramount to infants’ development of social and lexical skills [31,32]. Specifically, live maternal speech is thought to be associated with promoting infants’ autonomic stability, including respiration and heart rate [33], further bolstering the importance of mother-child interaction and supporting the health of the mother-infant dyad. By contrast, maternal distress associated with postpartum depression negatively impacts mother-child interactions, thus putting infants at a greater risk for developmental delays [34].
Shared Book Reading
Perhaps one of the best contexts that promotes caregiver-infant interactions in the NICU is shared book reading, connecting caregivers and their infants and providing them a way to participate in the caregiving experience [35]. Given the importance and benefit of early language and reading input, shared reading is thought to play an instrumental role in closing developmental gaps for infants in the NICU and consists of caregivers talking with the infant, actively engaging the infant in the reading activity through touch, use of motherese (also known as baby talk), singing, rhyming, and visual stimulation. These practices, when implemented by either caregivers or NICU staff members, have been found to benefit the language and literacy development of preterm infants, while strengthening parent-child relationships [35,36]. As they get older, children who engage in shared book reading with caregivers will utilize increasingly more sophisticated language as evidenced by a higher frequency of questions and the presence of a larger vocabulary base [37].
Theoretical Framework
This scoping review is cast in two developmental approaches: (a) the usage-based theory [38–40] and (b) the eco-biodevelopmental model of emergent literacy [5] (Fig 1). The usage-based theory argues that language is an emergent phenomenon that relies on patterns of use and communicative exchanges. Accordingly, reading is an outgrowth of language experience and language use, with daily, frequent communicative bids serving as its foundation. As such, the more caregivers and infants engage in shared reading practices in the NICU, the more connected (e.g., social-emotional, skin-to-skin) they become as evidenced by improved turn-taking skills, and increased willingness to read and connect in the future. Improved language use (pragmatic language) thus gives rise to better language structure (syntax), which translates to other components of language such as meaning (semantics), speech sounds (phonology), and word form (morphology) across spoken (oral language) and written (reading and writing) modalities. These interactive patterns of language use tend to offset the negative sequelae of the NICU environment including NICU ambient noise, maternal depression, and infant distress.
The eco-biodevelopmental model of emergent literacy which also informs this review, posits that reading has its origins in infancy and the early years that precede formal schooling, and that reading outcomes depend on the orchestration between ecological, biological, and developmental factors. As such, ecological contributions include home literacy practices, shared reading, caregiver-infant interaction, talking with infants, storytelling, and play. When applied to the NICU environment, the level and intensity of ambient noise, socioeconomic status (SES) of the family (e.g., high or low, poverty), maternal education, and concomitant factors such as epigenetic mechanisms associated with toxic stress, likely impact the degree to which caregivers engage in language and shared reading practices with their infants. While research suggests that caregivers from low SES backgrounds tend to have children with a higher risk for reading difficulties, read less frequently, and initiate reading with their children at older ages [41,42], further research is needed to explore the role of protective factors in shaping the developmental outcomes of these children.
In addition to the ecological influences, infants in the NICU present with a host of biological factors including a familial risk for reading disorders, predisposing them to reading difficulties. Moreover, comorbid conditions such as hearing loss, prematurity, low or very low birth weight, and a family history of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (e.g., having siblings who are diagnosed with ASD; family with a broader autism phenotype) or dyslexia serve as another layer of difficulties for infants in the NICU. Notably, bidirectional relationships exist between ecological and biological factors and influence infants’ (and mothers’) social-emotional development and physical, brain, and mental health. The more caregiver support (e.g., social-emotional, maternal vocal responsivity, language input, shared reading) these infants receive early in their development, the better their language and reading outcomes. Thus, caregiver-infant dyads who engage in shared reading practices that are rich in quantity and quality in the NICU will likely have better experience with reading, resulting in more frequent reading practices. Such an early exposure to print and language leads to reading readiness, positively impacting infants’ brain development [43–45] as well as their physical and mental health.
Materials and methods
Study design
This review was organized and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [46] [S1 Checklist]. A scoping review was chosen to allow for inclusion of studies from any methodology type and to report broadly on the literature in the field. No protocol was registered.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
This study sought to identify gaps in the literature and gather research evidence that characterizes shared reading in NICUs. Eligibility criteria were set to include studies that were peer-reviewed, available in the English language, involved infants in the NICU, included an intervention of reading books aloud or narrating a physical or e-book, and were published between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2023. No population age range limit was applied. The study considered all studies that had used quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods designs.
Database search strategy
An experienced medical librarian (SL) developed a comprehensive literature search strategy with input from the research team to identify articles meeting the study criteria. Pre-identified sentinel articles were hand searched for keywords relating to the study objectives. An initial search strategy was drafted for testing in PubMed. Those results were assessed, and additional terms were selected from the titles, abstracts, and MeSH terms. A second draft search was created with the added terms and again tested in PubMed.
The searches combined controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords related to the concepts of neonatal intensive care units (e.g., NICU, premature) and shared reading (e.g., reading aloud, language exposure). Searches were initially undertaken December 8, 2023. Full search strategies for each database may be found in S1 Supporting Information. The search strategy for PubMed may be found in Fig 2.
Nine bibliographic databases were searched: APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Child Development and Adolescent Studies (EBSCOhost), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCOhost), Embase.com (Elsevier), ERIC (EBSCOhost), Health Source: Nursing/Academic (EBSCOhost), Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (ProQuest), PubMed, and Scopus (Elsevier). After the searches, all identified records were collated and uploaded directly into Covidence, a systematic review software.
Results
Study selection
A total of 338 articles were identified through the database searches and uploaded to Covidence. Covidence identified 195 duplicates, leaving 143 records for title/abstract screening. The titles and abstracts were reviewed by two independent reviewers (LKF, SB) according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus agreement. Of these records, 129 were excluded for irrelevancy, leaving 14 eligible for full-text review. During the full-text review, the reviewers independently evaluated each article and excluded six articles, leaving eight articles that met all the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this study. The review and selection processes for the studies are summarized in the diagram in Fig 3.
Findings related to shared reading in the NICU.
The eight articles that met inclusion criteria are listed in Table 1. Despite our search spanning 20 years of research, a majority of the literature on shared reading in the NICU was published in the previous year (2023). While the importance of shared reading in the NICU is well documented [47,48], the lag in evaluation and dissemination in peer-reviewed journals represents an area of need for improvement. All eight articles emphasized shared reading in the NICU; however, the outcomes as well as the methodologies that were used to measure those outcomes varied. Most of the studies leveraged a survey study design alone [49–52] or in combination with a mixed methods design [23,53]. Two studies utilized objective and observable measures, such as General Motor Assessment of Movement and Bayley Scales of Infant Development [54], as well as heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation [55]. All studies provided books to the families including general children’s books [55] and through formalized programs such as Reach Out and Read [52,54], R.E.A.D (Read to, Enjoy, And Develop) Your Baby program [49], the Little Reader’s Read-a-thon [50], NICU Bookworm program [51], the Books for Babies reading program [23], and Read-a-Latte read-a-thon with books from Cleveland Kids’ Book Bank, Reach Out and Read, the Literacy Cooperative at Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library, and Project NICU [53].
The study data was extracted by two reviewers (LKF, SB). Studies spanned several countries and regions, including Brooklyn, New York (U.S.) [49], New South Wales (Australia) [50], Cincinnati, Ohio (U.S.) [51], Belagavi (India) [54], Montreal (Canada) [23], Cleveland, Ohio (U.S.) [53], Boston, Massachusetts (U.S.) [52], and Washington D.C. (U.S.) [55]. Two studies emphasized use of books in a language other than English including Levesque et al. [52] using books in the family’s primary language, and Kale and Deshpande [54] using books in Hindi, Marathi, and Kannada, in addition to English.
Studies also varied widely in terms of their use of tracking methods to document parent reading practices. Levesque et al. [52] used calendars and stickers where parents were asked to record how often they read to their infants. They also used electronic medical records (EMR) to track parental presence in the NICU. Lariviere and Rennick [23] assessed parent reading to their infants using the Parent-Infant Activity Sheet, a 20-item questionnaire that assesses the frequency and duration of infant care activities, including parent-infant reading. Kale and Deshpande [54] tracked parental adherence to regular intervention at home using weekly phone calls and during the monthly visits to the high-risk baby clinic. Such variability would be important to document as it tends to reduce the replicability of the studies, rendering measurement of tracking parental reading practices less accurate.
Moreover, the studies differed with respect to the medical or caregiving team participating in the shared reading program. For example, studies ranged from teams of professionals (neonatologist, NICU nurse manager, ROR coordinator, and data collector) [52], to a single professional like a nurse [23] or a pediatric physiotherapist [54]. These differences in who is involved in the caregiving in the NICU introduces a difficult-to-control variable which potentially interferes with comparability between the reviewed studies.
DISCUSSION
Our scoping review revealed that infants benefit from shared reading during their NICU stay. Generally, the shared reading programs place a heavy emphasis on shared book reading in the NICU, educating parents on the benefits of shared reading, how to effectively read to their child, and how to implement language from books into daily routines, while facilitating caregiver access by placing children’s books throughout the NICU environment. Beyond the NICU, the Reach Out and Read program [52] provides participants with two free books initially, followed by one book per month. While this program is reported to promote shared book reading by equipping parents with the resources, it does not include a method of tracking shared reading habits beyond the NICU, nor does it confirm that the caregivers integrated shared book reading into their daily life.
The available research suggests that shared reading program implementations to date have largely emphasized caregiver training in the NICU, with the rationale that caregivers would be more likely to continue shared book reading practices that positively impact infants’ language and reading outcomes after being discharged [23]. However, given the lack of mechanisms in place for motivating the parents and holding them accountable for implementing shared reading, the long-term benefits of shared reading after NICU discharge could not be substantiated, rendering the effectiveness of caregiver training tenuous. Furthermore, the dearth of longitudinal investigations and the limitations inherent in the methodologies employed in the studies on shared reading in the NICU provide additional support for the lack of effective shared reading interventions at this time.
This review indicates that shared reading programs and initiatives are available, yet lack standardization, serving as add-ons to the NICU stay rather than an integral part embedded into the existing routine practices of the NICU. As such, shared reading programs are introduced, incorporated into hospital NICUs, and then replaced by other shared reading programs, resulting in temporary, unsustainable changes in the NICU. While the practices that many shared reading programs promote are beneficial, caregivers and infants would benefit most from having shared book reading woven into their NICU stay as an essential routine element, that is reflective of their racial, ethnic, and cultural background.
When considering the extant research, the review findings align with previous studies which consider the need for a preventive approach based on current research evidence. Recent findings suggest structural brain (cerebellar) anomalies [56], lack of processing efficiency, and reduced difficulties, including cognition and reading in children who were in the NICU [57]. Efforts must be directed to identify these children as early as possible to mitigate the cascading learning sequelae that derail their developmental trajectories, negatively impacting their future cognitive outcomes, including reading [56,57]. Furthermore, enhancing parent language input not only boosts infants’ volubility (i.e., number of vocalizations) in the NICU [29] but also bolsters their speech and language outcomes as evidenced by increased infant volubility at 30 weeks and their conversational turns with their parents at 32 weeks compared to language input from other adults [29], potentially maximizing infants’ developmental outcomes beyond the NICU stay.
One primary aim of this review was to evaluate the existing literature and programs that target shared book reading in the NICU. By uncovering the strengths and limitations that exist in the literature, we can expand research efforts to inform practice on shared reading. Future studies must move beyond creating or expanding a program that educates parents on shared book reading; instead, they should aim to train NICU staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, clerks, administrators) using translational research and implementation science principles to embed shared book reading as standard practice within the NICU. We believe that such training will likely address the issue of language and reading delays more systematically, with interventions beginning as early as possible. A “train the trainer” program targeting not only parents, but all individuals who interact with the infants in the NICU, will help ensure shared reading practices are encouraged and enforced permanently, beyond the entry and exit of NICU stay. This would maximize capacity transfer from staff to caregivers and ultimately result in improved developmental language and reading outcomes for all infants.
Strengths and Limitations
While this scoping review had many strengths, it also had some limitations. In terms of strengths, having the expertise of a medical librarian added authority to the development of our search strategies and database choices. Furthermore, involving the librarian who is representative of end users and consumers of this research was important as stakeholder engagement was central to our review. We believe such an addition serves to ensure relevance, contextualization, and uptake of the research findings [58]. The use of an electronic tool, Covidence, helped increase the rigor of and decrease bias in our review.
With respect to limitations, they centered on four main areas. First, the review identified only eight studies that met inclusionary criteria, pointing to the dearth of research on this topic. Second, while our search targeted shared reading in the NICU, most of the studies focused on premature infants at the expense of other medically fragile infants who would be optimal candidates for shared reading interventions. Third, the methodological rigor was tenuous as the studies reviewed employed only pre- and post-study designs, descriptive statistics, or exploratory qualitative analyses. Fourth, the construct of shared reading was confined to shared book reading, precluding the inclusion of families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who are likely engaging in shared reading in other ways (e.g., using digital stories, oral storytelling that are more representative of their cultural heritage). Furthermore, sources in languages other than the English language were excluded due to the authors’ language limitations and lack of funds for translation. Such findings provide opportunities for future investigations that address the needs of all infants and parents in the NICU.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, shared reading in the NICU has been found to be beneficial for infants and their caregivers during their NICU stay. The cumulative evidence based on this scoping review supports reading to infants in the NICU and calls for an expansion of such efforts by embedding shared reading as part of standard practice, involving both caregivers and healthcare providers. An understanding of the neurobiology of infants in the NICU and shared reading itself as a developmental process can help us design systemic, sustainable interventions that consider key variables, including diverse eco-biological forces that contribute to and are shaped by the dynamic nature of the developing infant.
Supporting Information
S1 Supporting Information. Full Search Strategies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318690.s002
(DOCX)
S1 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318690.s003
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Snowling MJ, Hulme C. Annual research review: reading disorders revisited–the critical importance of oral language. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2021;62(5):635–53. pmid:32956509
- 2. Bus AG, van IJzendoorn MH, Pellegrini AD. Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: a meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Rev. Educ. Res. 1995;65(1):1–21.
- 3.
Ezell HK, Justice LM. Shared storybook reading: Building young children’s language & emergent literacy skills. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing; 2005.
- 4. Catts HW, Petscher Y. A cumulative risk and resilience model of dyslexia. J Learn Disabil. 2022;55(3):171–84. pmid:34365842
- 5. Hutton JS, DeWitt T, Hoffman L, Horowitz-Kraus T, Klass P. Development of an eco-biodevelopmental model of emergent literacy before kindergarten: a review. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(7):730–41. pmid:33720328
- 6. Catts H, Hogan T. Dyslexia: an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of diagnosis and treatment. Read Leag J. 2021;2:6–13.
- 7. World Health Organization. 2023 Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/06-10-2023-1-in-10-babies-worldwide-are-born-early--with-major-impacts-on-health-and-survival
- 8. Centers for Disease Control. 2019. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pretermbirth.htm.
- 9. Eskandari S, Mirhaghjou SN, Maleki M, Mardani A, Gholami M, Harding C. Identification of the range of nursing skills used to provide social support for mothers of preterm infants in neonatal intensive care. Crit Care Res Pract. 2021;2021:6697659. pmid:33505719
- 10. Niklas F, Schneider W. Home Literacy Environment and the beginning of reading and spelling. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2013;38(1):40–50.
- 11. Raikes H, Pan BA, Luze G, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Brooks-Gunn J, Constantine J, et al. Mother-child bookreading in low-income families: correlates and outcomes during the first three years of life. Child Dev. 2006;77(4):924–53. pmid:16942498
- 12. Maleki M, Mardani A, Harding C, Basirinezhad MH, Vaismoradi M. Nurses’ strategies to provide emotional and practical support to the mothers of preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Womens Health (Lond). 2022;18:17455057221104674. pmid:35735784
- 13. Snow CE, Arlman-Rupp A, Hassing Y, Jobse J, Joosten J, Vorster J. Mothers’ speech in three social classes. J Psycholinguist Res. 1976;5(1):1–20.
- 14. Ninio A. Picture-book reading in mother-infant dyads belonging to two subgroups in Israel. Child Development. 1980;51(2):587.
- 15. Holdaway D. Shared book experience: teaching reading using favorite books. Theory Into Practice. 1982;21(4):293–300.
- 16. Early Child Res Q. Ortiz C, Stowe RM, Arnold DH. Parental influence on child interest in shared picture book reading. Early Child Res Q. 2001;16(2):263–81.
- 17. Tsuji H. A longitudinal examination of the booksharing environment for young infants: What influences early booksharing activity and a child’s communication development at 19 months of age?. Hum Sci Res Bull. 2008;7:99–109.
- 18. Yont KM, Snow CE, Vernon-Feagans L. The role of context in mother–child interactions: an analysis of communicative intents expressed during toy play and book reading with 12-month-olds. J Pragmatics. 2003;35(3):435–54.
- 19. Karrass J, Braungart-Rieker JM. Effects of shared parent–infant book reading on early language acquisition. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2005;26(2):133–48.
- 20. Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, Zucker T, Crawford AD, Solari EF. The effects of a responsive parenting intervention on parent-child interactions during shared book reading. Dev Psychol. 2012;48(4):969–86. pmid:22122475
- 21. O’Farrelly C, Doyle O, Victory G, Palamaro-Munsell E. Shared reading in infancy and later development: Evidence from an early intervention. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2018;54:69–83.
- 22. Brósch-Fohraheim N, Fuiko R, Marschik PB, Resch B. The influence of preterm birth on expressive vocabulary at the age of 36 to 41 months. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(6):e14404. pmid:30732188
- 23. Lariviere J, Rennick JE. Parent picture-book reading to infants in the neonatal intensive care unit as an intervention supporting parent-infant interaction and later book reading. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011;32(2):146–52. pmid:21289497
- 24. Shanty L, Dowling R, Sonnenschein S, Hussey-Gardner B. Evaluation of an early language and literacy program for parents of infants in the NICU. Neonatal Netw. 2019;38(4):206–16. pmid:31470389
- 25. Khasawneh W, Sindiani A, Rawabdeh SA, Aleshawi A, Kanaan D. Indications and clinical profile of neonatal admissions: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis from a single academic center in Jordan. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020;13:997–1006. pmid:33061405
- 26. Williams KG, Patel KT, Stausmire JM, Bridges C, Mathis MW, Barkin JL. The neonatal intensive care unit: environmental stressors and supports. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(1):60. pmid:29301343
- 27. Kazemi A, Nikfarid L, Khanali Mojen L, Nasiri M. Obstacles to parents’ interaction with neonates in neonatal intensive care units from parents’ and nurses’ points of view. Iran. J. Neonatol. 2019;10(1):78–85.
- 28. Best K, Hughes I, New K, Bogossian F. An observational study of sound exposure in a single-room configured neonatal unit (SENSE study). J Neonatal Nurs. 2020;26(6):344–51.
- 29. Caskey M, Stephens B, Tucker R, Vohr B. Adult talk in the NICU with preterm infants and developmental outcomes. Pediatrics. 2014;133(3):e578–84.
- 30. Brown MI, Westerveld MF, Trembath D, Gillon GT. Promoting language and social communication development in babies through an early storybook reading intervention. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;20(3):337–49. pmid:29243504
- 31. Gonya J, Feldman K, Brown K, Stein M, Keim S, Boone K, et al. Human interaction in the NICU and its association with outcomes on the Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA). Early Hum Dev. 2018;127:6–14. pmid:30218893
- 32. Ståhlberg-Forsén E, Latva R, Leppänen J, Lehtonen L, Stolt S. Eye tracking based assessment of lexical processing and early lexical development in very preterm children. Early Hum Dev. 2022;170:105603. pmid:35724569
- 33. Rand K, Lahav A. Maternal sounds elicit lower heart rate in preterm newborns in the first month of life. Early Hum Dev. 2014;90(10):679–83. pmid:25194837
- 34. Korja R, Savonlahti E, Ahlqvist-Björkroth S, Stolt S, Haataja L, Lapinleimu H, et al. Maternal depression is associated with mother-infant interaction in preterm infants. Acta Paediatr. 2008;97(6):724–30. pmid:18373715
- 35. Walker LJ. Bonding with books: the parent-infant connection in the neonatal intensive care unit. Neonatal Netw. 2013;32(2):104–9. pmid:23477977
- 36. Jones MW, Englestad DM. “Womb” literacy: reading to infants in the NICU. Neonatal Netw. 2004;23(4):65–9. pmid:15317385
- 37. Neri E, De Pascalis L, Agostini F, Genova F, Biasini A, Stella M, et al. Parental book-reading to preterm born infants in NICU: the effects on language development in the first two years. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11361. pmid:34769878
- 38. Bybee J. Language universals and usage-based theory. Lang. Univers. 2009:17–39.
- 39.
Elman JL, Bates EA, Johnson MH, Karmiloff-Smith A, et al. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1996.
- 40.
Tomasello M. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2003
- 41. Perkins SC, Finegood ED, Swain JE. Poverty and language development: roles of parenting and stress. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2013;10(4):10–9. pmid:23696954
- 42. Romeo RR, Uchida L, Christodoulou JA. Socioeconomic status and reading outcomes: Neurobiological and behavioral correlates. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2022;2022(183–184):57–70. pmid:35868867
- 43. Davison KE, Zuk J, Mullin LJ, Ozernov-Palchik O, Norton E, Gabrieli JDE, et al. examining shared reading and white matter organization in kindergarten in relation to subsequent language and reading abilities: a longitudinal investigation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2023;35(2):259–75. pmid:36378907
- 44. Huber E, Corrigan NM, Yarnykh VL, Ferjan Ramírez N, Kuhl PK. Language experience during infancy predicts white matter myelination at Age 2 Years. J Neurosci. 2023;43(9):1590–9. pmid:36746626
- 45. Langer N, Peysakhovich B, Zuk J, Drottar M, Sliva DD, Smith S, et al. White matter alterations in infants at risk for developmental dyslexia. Cereb Cortex. 2017;27(2):1027–36. pmid:26643353
- 46. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
- 47. Boissel L, Guilé J-M, Viaux-Savelon S, Mariana C, Corde P, Wallois F, et al. A narrative review of the effect of parent-child shared reading in preterm infants. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:860391. pmid:36172394
- 48. Canfield CF, Miller EB, Shaw DS, Morris P, Alonso A, Mendelsohn AL. Beyond language: Impacts of shared reading on parenting stress and early parent-child relational health. Dev Psychol. 2020;56(7):1305–15. pmid:32352828
- 49. Canarte C, Suk D, Nulman O. Implementation of a shared reading campaign in the NICU: A quality initiative study. J Investig Med. 2022;70(4):1138–9.
- 50. Fraser A, Griffiths N, Webb A. Why reading matters. The development of a read-a-thon for neonatal intensive care units to encourage neonatal exposure to language. J Neonatal Nurs. 2023;29(5):704–8.
- 51. Jain VG, Kessler C, Lacina L, Szumlas GA, Crosh C, Hutton JS, et al. Encouraging parental reading for high-risk neonatal intensive care unit infants. J Pediatr. 2021;232:95–102. pmid:33453203
- 52. Levesque BM, Tran A, Levesque E, Shrestha H, Silva R, Adams M, et al. Implementation of a pilot program of Reach Out and Read® in the neonatal intensive care unit: a quality improvement initiative. J Perinatol. 2018;38(6):759–66. pmid:29434254
- 53. Latif M, Duarte Ribeiro AP, Blatz MA, Burkett K, Dragon MA, Craver T, et al. Encouraging Our NICU to “Read-a-Latte”: leveraging a read-a-thon to launch a quality improvement initiative. Adv Neonatal Care. 2023;23(2):120–31. pmid:36322927
- 54. Kale SS, Deshpande VR. Reach out and read literacy program for infants in neonatal intensive care unit: a pre-post experimental study. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2023;62(12):1543–50. pmid:37038755
- 55. Scala M, Seo S, Lee-Park J, McClure C, Scala M, Palafoutas JJ, et al. Effect of reading to preterm infants on measures of cardiorespiratory stability in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2018;38(11):1536–41. pmid:30120423
- 56. Xu F, Wang Y, Wang W, Liang W, Tang Y, Liu S. Preterm birth alters the regional development and structural covariance of cerebellum at term-equivalent age. Cerebellum. 2024;23(5):1932–41. pmid:38581612
- 57. Kovachy VN, Adams JN, Tamaresis JS, Feldman HM. Reading abilities in school-aged preterm children: a review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2015;57(5):410–9. pmid:25516105
- 58. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, Garritty CM, Hempel S, Horsley T, et al. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):263. pmid:34625095