Video Interaction Project
The Video Interaction Project (VIP) aims to use regularly scheduled pediatrician visits for children ages 0–5 to support child development, school readiness, and educational outcomes. VIP sessions focus on increasing responsive parenting, a parenting style where parents learn to observe their child’s behavior, interpret their cues, and act in a way that meets the child’s needs.
Trained VIP coaches meet with the parent and child together either before or after the child’s regularly scheduled pediatric well-child visit (i.e., check-up). During the VIP session, coaches encourage parental behaviors that support children’s social-emotional, cognitive, and language growth. To support children’s social-emotional growth, coaches talk to parents about perspective-taking, responsiveness, engagement in children’s interests, giving positive feedback and affection, and avoiding anger and harsh discipline. To support children’s cognitive and language growth, coaches help parents structure tasks at an appropriate level for the child's abilities, label objects and actions, repeat and expand on what the child says, have back-and-forth conversations, and ask questions.
Each VIP session typically includes three activities: (1) parents receive learning materials, (2) coaches record and review a video of the parent and child, and (3) parents and coaches fill out a written Parent Guide. First, each session begins with the parent and the coach discussing the parent's goals for their child’s social-emotional and cognitive-language development and strategies to meet these goals. During this discussion, the coach provides the parent with developmentally appropriate learning materials (e.g., a toy, book, or both) selected to promote pretend play, verbal engagement, and early literacy. The coach then suggests ways that the parent can use the toy or book at home to engage with their child. Second, after this discussion, the coach records a 3–5-minute video of the parent and child exploring the new toy or book together. Coaches then review the video with the parent to reinforce positive interactions and identify additional opportunities for interaction. Finally, the coach and parent work together to complete a written, visit-specific Parent Guide pamphlet that reinforces lessons learned during the session and includes suggestions for interacting with the child through play, shared reading, and daily routines.
VIP is rated as a promising practice because at least one study achieved a rating of moderate or high on study design and execution and demonstrated a favorable effect on a target outcome.
Date Last Reviewed (Handbook Version 1.0): Jul 2023
Sources
The following sources informed the program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, and the studies reviewed.
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0
Target Population
VIP is designed to serve parents and children ages 0–5.
Dosage
VIP sessions are designed to be delivered in conjunction with regularly scheduled pediatric well-child visits. These well-child visits occur every few months during infancy and toddlerhood and then less frequently as children get older.
Sites can choose to implement VIP for children ages 0–3, 3–5, or 0–5 and the number of sessions varies based on the age at which the child starts the program. When delivered from ages 0–3, VIP can include up to 14 sessions. When delivered from ages 3–5, VIP can include up to nine sessions. When delivered from ages 0–5, VIP can include up to 23 sessions. Each session lasts 30–45 minutes.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
Coaches typically deliver VIP in pediatric healthcare or community settings. Coaches can also deliver VIP virtually in the home.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- Hospital/Medical Center
Education, Certifications and Training
VIP typically requires that coaches have a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field and knowledge of child development. In some circumstances, coaches may have an associate’s degree with additional background or experience in early childhood development.
The VIP Center of Excellence (COE) delivers required training for coaches. This includes a 3-day start-up training course offered in person or virtually, onsite visits, remote supervision and refresher videoconference seminars. Coaches must also complete any additional training or regulatory requirements specific to the implementing site, such as site-specific training or background checks.
Sites interested in implementing VIP must complete an onboarding process with the VIP COE. This process includes a preliminary site visit, completion of a site implementation worksheet, hiring and training a VIP coach, identifying a VIP Champion who will facilitate local engagement and coordinate with the COE, creating a list of existing local resources for families, and identifying spaces for program delivery that meet program requirements. Programs may implement a pilot phase before launching the program. After launch, sites complete site protocols on a regular basis to monitor program implementation.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Mendelsohn, A. L., Berkule Johnson, S., Cates, C. B., Custode, A., Matalon, M., Weisleder, A., Seery, A., Kinsner, K., Flynn, V., & Dreyer, B. P. (2021). Video Interaction Project (VIP) - Program manual. NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Available languages
VIP materials are available in English.
Other supporting materials
For More Information
Website: https://www.playreadvip.org/
Email: PlayReadVIP@nyulangone.org
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Video Interaction Project |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 3 |
| Eligible for Review | 3 |
| Rated High | 1 |
| Rated Moderate | 2 |
| Rated Low | 0 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.19
7 |
2 (18) | 518 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 14 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.08
3 |
1 (3) | 419 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities |
0.15
6 |
1 (1) | 280 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.25
9 |
2 (26) | 674 |
Favorable:
16 No Effect: 10 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.10
4 |
1 (4) | 97 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.13
5 |
2 (5) | 315 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group.
| Outcome | Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.19
7 |
2 (18) | 518 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 14 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14798 - VIP vs. Standard Well-child Pediatric Primary Care (Mendelsohn, 2007) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Difficult Child (33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.21
8 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problems (33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.30
11 |
- | 99 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (33 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.11
-4 |
- | 99 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.39
15 |
- | 99 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problems (% in Clinical Range, 33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.54
20 |
- | 99 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (% in Clinical Range, 33 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.06
-2 |
- | 99 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (% in Clinical Range, 33 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.11
-4 |
- | 99 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Difficult Child (% in Clinical Range, 33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.03
1 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Study 14799 - VIP 3 to 5 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) (Mendelsohn, 2018) | |||||
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Hyperactivity (54 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.05
-2 |
- | 118 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Attention Problems (54 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.01
0 |
- | 118 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Aggression (54 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.28
11 |
- | 118 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Externalizing Problems (54 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.24
9 |
- | 118 | - | 0 |
| Study 14799 - VIP 0 to 3 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) (Weisleder, 2016) | |||||
| Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment – Revised: Attention (24 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.29
*
11 |
- | 297 | - | 0 |
| Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment – Revised: Separation Distress (24 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.26
*
10 |
- | 297 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Attention Problems |
0.11
4 |
- | 301 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Hyperactivity |
0.27
*
10 |
- | 301 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Aggression |
0.19
7 |
- | 301 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Externalizing Problems |
0.27
*
10 |
- | 301 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.08
3 |
1 (3) | 419 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14799 - VIP 3 to 5 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) (Mendelsohn, 2018) | |||||
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Social Skills (54 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.02
0 |
- | 118 | - | 0 |
| Study 14799 - VIP 0 to 3 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) (Weisleder, 2016) | |||||
| Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment – Revised: Imitation/Play (24 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.16
6 |
- | 297 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children – Parent Rating Scales, Second Edition: Social Skills |
0.08
3 |
- | 301 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities |
0.15
6 |
1 (1) | 280 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14799 - VIP 0 to 3 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) (Mendelsohn, 2020) | |||||
| Early Intervention Referral Rate |
0.15
6 |
- | 280 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.25
9 |
2 (26) | 674 |
Favorable:
16 No Effect: 10 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14799 - VIP 0 to 3 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) (Cates, 2018) | |||||
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Total Score (14 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.54
*
20 |
- | 219 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Availability of Learning Materials (14 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.22
8 |
- | 219 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Reading (14 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.39
*
15 |
- | 219 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Parental Involvement in Developmental Advance (14 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.49
*
18 |
- | 219 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Parental Verbal Responsivity (14 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.48
*
18 |
- | 219 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Total Score (24 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.30
*
11 |
- | 312 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Availability of Learning Materials (24 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.06
2 |
- | 312 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Reading (24 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.27
*
10 |
- | 312 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Parental Involvement in Developmental Advance (24 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.11
4 |
- | 312 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Toddler: Parental Verbal Responsivity (24 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.36
*
14 |
- | 312 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Preschool: Total Score (36 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.19
7 |
- | 302 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Preschool: Availability of Learning Materials (36 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.12
4 |
- | 302 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Preschool: Reading (36 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.23
*
9 |
- | 302 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Preschool: Parental Involvement in Developmental Advance (36 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.03
1 |
- | 302 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Preschool: Parental Verbal Responsivity (36 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.27
*
10 |
- | 302 | - | 0 |
| Study 14803 - VIP vs. Routine Primary Care (Roby, 2021) | |||||
| StimQ2 – Infant: Total Score |
0.28
*
11 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Infant: Reading |
0.23
*
9 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Infant: Parental Involvement in Developmental Advance |
0.25
*
9 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| StimQ2 – Infant: Parental Verbal Responsivity |
0.16
6 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Your Baby Questionnaire: Supporting and Enjoying |
0.06
2 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales – Infant Adaptation: Parental Sensitivity |
0.16
6 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales – Infant Adaptation: Parental Intrusiveness |
-0.07
-2 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales – Infant Adaptation: Parental Support for Cognitive Development |
0.36
*
14 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales – Infant Adaptation: Parental Support for Language Quantity |
0.40
*
15 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales – Infant Adaptation: Parental Support for Language Quality |
0.37
*
14 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales – Infant Adaptation: Cognitive Stimulation Factor |
0.40
*
15 |
- | 362 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.10
4 |
1 (4) | 97 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14798 - VIP vs. Standard Well-child Pediatric Primary Care (Mendelsohn, 2007) | |||||
| Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Total Score (33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.17
6 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Parenting Distress (33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.35
13 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Parenting Distress (% in Clinical Range, 33 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.33
-13 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (% in Clinical Range, 33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.22
8 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.13
5 |
2 (5) | 315 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14799 - VIP 0 to 3 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) (Cates, 2016) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction (14 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.18
7 |
- | 218 | - | 0 |
| Study 14798 - VIP vs. Standard Well-child Pediatric Primary Care (Mendelsohn, 2007) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Total Score (33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.40
15 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction (33 Month Interim Assessment) |
0.23
9 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Total Score (% in Clinical Range, 33 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.48
-18 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index – Short Form: Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction (% in Clinical Range, 33 Month Interim Assessment) |
-0.26
-10 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes and statistical significance (see Section 7.3.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Age or Grade-level
|
Race, Ethnicity, Nationality
|
Gender
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
| Study 14798 - VIP vs. Standard Well-child Pediatric Primary Care | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| New York City, NY, USA | 1999 | Average gestational age: 39 weeks | -- | 38% Female | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| New York City, NY, USA | 1999 | Average age: 30 years |
100% Latino 63% Born in Mexico 12% Born in Ecuador 11% Born in the continental United States 8% Born in the Dominican Republic 1.3% Born in Puerto Rico 1.3% Born in Peru 1.3% Born in El Salvador 0.7% Born in Nicaragua 0.7% Born in Honduras 0.7% Born in Colombia |
-- |
100% Mothers; 83% Father living in household; 26% Mothers assessed to be in the clinical range for depression using the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D); 3% Homeless |
14% Working |
| Study 14799 - VIP 0 to 3 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| New York City, NY, USA | 2005 | -- | -- | 51% Female sex | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| New York City, NY, USA | 2005 | Average age: 28 years; 100% 18 or older; 10% less than age 21 |
91% Hispanic/Latina 85% Immigrant |
-- | 100% Mothers of newborns | -- |
| Study 14799 - VIP 3 to 5 years vs. Routine Well-Child Care (RCT) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| New York City, NY, USA | 2005 | Mean age: 58 months | -- | 54% Female Child | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| New York City, NY, USA | 2005 | 100% 18 years or older; 9% Less than 21 years |
95% Hispanic 92% Born outside United States |
-- | 100% Mother primary caregivers | -- |
| Study 14803 - VIP vs. Routine Primary Care | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| New York City, NY, USA; Pittsburgh, PA, USA | 2015 | Average age: 7 months |
50% Black/African American 43% Latinx 4% Other race and/or ethnicity 3% White 1% Asian |
50% Female | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| New York City, NY, USA; Pittsburgh, PA, USA | 2015 | 7% Teenage mothers less than 20 years old |
45% Black/African American 44% Latinx 7% White 3% Other race and/or ethnicity 2% Asian American |
-- | 100% Mothers | -- |
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated High
Study 14799Mendelsohn, A. L., Dreyer, B. P., Brockmeyer, C. A., Berkule-Silberman, S. B., Huberman, H. S., & Tomopoulos, S. (2011a). Randomized controlled trial of primary care pediatric parenting programs: Effect on reduced media exposure in infants, mediated through enhanced parent-child interaction. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165(1), 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.266
Mendelsohn, A. L., Huberman, H. S., Berkule, S. B., Brockmeyer, C. A., Morrow, L. M., & Dreyer, B. P. (2011b). Primary care strategies for promoting parent-child interactions and school readiness in at-risk families: The Bellevue Project for Early Language, Literacy, and Education Success. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.254
Cates, C. B., Dreyer, B. P., Berkule, S. B., White, L. J., Arevalo, J. A., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2012). Infant communication and subsequent language development in children from low-income families: The role of early cognitive stimulation. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 33(7), 577-585. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e318264c10f
Berkule, S. B., Cates, C. B., Dreyer, B. P., Huberman, H. S., Arevalo, J., Burtchen, N., Weisleder, A., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2014). Reducing maternal depressive symptoms through promotion of parenting in pediatric primary care. Clinical Pediatrics, 53(5), 460-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922814528033
Canfield, C. F., Weisleder, A., Cates, C. B., Huberman, H. S., Dreyer, B. P., Legano, L. A., Johnson, S. B., Seery, A., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2015). Primary care parenting intervention and its effects on the use of physical punishment among low-income parents of toddlers. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 36(8), 586-593. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000206
Cates, C., Weisleder, A., Dreyer, B., Berkule Johnson, S., Vlahovicova, K., Ledesma, J., & Mendelsohn, A. (2016). Leveraging healthcare to promote responsive parenting: Impacts of the Video Interaction Project on parenting stress. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 25(3), 827-835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0267-7
Weisleder, A., Cates, C. B., Dreyer, B. P., Berkule Johnson, S., Huberman, H. S., Seery, A. M., Canfield, C. F., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2016). Promotion of positive parenting and prevention of socioemotional disparities. Pediatrics, 137(2), Article e20153239. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3239
Cates, C. B., Weisleder, A., Berkule Johnson, S., Seery, A. M., Canfield, C. F., Huberman, H., Dreyer, B. P., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2018). Enhancing parent talk, reading, and play in primary care: Sustained impacts of the Video Interaction Project. Journal of Pediatrics, 199, 49-56.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.03.002
Mendelsohn, A. L., Brockmeyer Cates, C., Welsleder, A., Berkule Johnson, S., Seery, A. M., Canfield, C. F., Huberman, H. S., & Dreyer, B. P. (2018). Reading aloud, play, and social-emotional development. Pediatrics, 141(5), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-3393
Katzow, M., Canfield, C., Gross, R. S., Messito, M. J., Cates, C. B., Weisleder, A., Johnson, S. B., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2019). Maternal depressive symptoms and perceived picky eating in a low-income, primarily Hispanic sample. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 40(9), 706-715. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000715
Weisleder, A., Cates, C. B., Harding, J. F., Johnson, S. B., Canfield, C. F., Seery, A. M., Raak, C. D., Alonso, A., Dreyer, B. P., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2019). Links between shared reading and play, parent psychosocial functioning, and child behavior: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Pediatrics, 213, 187-195.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.06.037
Mendelsohn, A. L., Cates, C. B., Huberman, H. S., Johnson, S. B., Govind, P., Kincler, N., Rohatgi, R., Weisleder, A., Trogen, B., & Dreyer, B. P. (2020). Assessing the impacts of pediatric primary care parenting interventions on EI referrals through linkage with a public health database. Journal of Early Intervention, 42(1), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815119880597
Mendelsohn, A. L., Brockmeyer, C. A., Dreyer, B. P., Fierman, A. H., Berkule-Silberman, S. B., & Tomopoulos, S. (2010). Do verbal interactions with infants during electronic media exposure mitigate adverse impacts on their language development as toddlers? Infant and Child Development, 19(6), 577-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.711
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Moderate
Study 14803Roby, E., Miller, E. B., Shaw, D. S., Morris, P., Gill, A., Bogen, D. L., Rosas, J., Canfield, C. F., Hails, K. A., Wippick, H., Honoroff, J., Cates, C. B., Weisleder, A., Chadwick, K. A., Raak, C. D., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2021). Improving parent-child interactions in pediatric health care: A two-site randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics, 147(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1799
Miller, E. B., Canfield, C. F., Morris, P. A., Shaw, D. S., Cates, C. B., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2020). Sociodemographic and psychosocial predictors of VIP attendance in Smart Beginnings through 6 months: Effectively targeting at-risk mothers in early visits. Prevention Science, 21(1), 120-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01044-y
Canfield, C. F., Miller, E. B., Shaw, D. S., Morris, P., Alonso, A., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2020). Beyond language: Impacts of shared reading on parenting stress and early parent-child relational health. Developmental Psychology, 56(7), 1305-1315. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000940
Hails, K. A., Whipps, M. D. M., Gross, R. S., Bogen, D. L., Morris, P. A., Mendelsohn, A. L., & Shaw, D. S. (2021). Breastfeeding and responsive parenting as predictors of infant weight change in the first year. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 46(7), 768-778. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsab049
Miller, E. B., Roby, E., Zhang, Y., Coskun, L., Rosas, J. M., Scott, M. A., Gutierrez, J., Shaw, D. S., Mendelsohn, A. L., & Morris-Perez, P. A. (2022). Promoting cognitive stimulation in parents across infancy and toddlerhood: A randomized clinical trial. The Journal of Pediatrics, 255, 159-165.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.11.013
Reno, R., Whipps, M., Wallenborn, J. T., Demirci, J., Bogen, D. L., Gross, R. S., Mendelsohn, A. L., Morris, P. A., & Shaw, D. S. (2022). Housing insecurity, housing conditions, and breastfeeding behaviors for medicaid-eligible families in urban settings. Journal of Human Lactation, 38(4), 760-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344221108073
Miller, E. B., Whipps, M. D. M., Bogen, D. L., Morris, P. A., Mendelsohn, A. L., Shaw, D. S., & Gross, R. S. (2023). Collateral benefits from a school-readiness intervention on breastfeeding: A cross-domain impact evaluation. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 19(1), Article e13446. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.13446
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 14798
Mendelsohn, A. L., Dreyer, B. P., Flynn, V., Tomopoulos, S., Rovira, I., Tineo, W., Pebenito, C., Torres, C., Torres, H., & Nixon, A. F. (2005). Use of videotaped interactions during pediatric well-child care to promote child development: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26(1), 34–41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15718881/
Mendelsohn, A. L., Valdez, P. T., Flynn, V., Foley, G. M., Berkule, S. B., Tomopoulos, S., Fierman, A. H., Tineo, W., & Dreyer, B. P. (2007). Use of videotaped interactions during pediatric well-child care: Impact at 33 months on parenting and on child development. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 28(3), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3180324d87
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)