Speech-Language Pathology
Fonoaudiologia Baseada
em Evidências
Bruna Campos De Cesaro1
Léia Gonçalves Gurgel1
Gabriela Pisoni Canedo Nunes1
Caroline Tozzi Reppold1
Descritores
Saúde pública Fonoaudiologia Linguagem infantil Atenção primária à saúde Revisão
Keywords
Public health Speech, language and hearing sciences
Child language Primary health care
Review
Correspondence address: Bruna Campos De Cesaro
Rua Sarmento Leite, 245, Centro, Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil, CEP: 90050-170. E-mail: brunacc@ufcspa.edu.br
Received: 01/02/2013
Accepted: 11/04/2013
Study carried out at the Graduate Progam in Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre – UFCSPA – Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil.
(1) Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre – UFCSPA – Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil. Conlict of interests: nothing to declare.
systematic literature review
Intervenções em linguagem infantil na atenção primária à
saúde: revisão sistemática
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Systematically review the literature on interventions in children’s language in primary health care. Methods: One searched the electronic databases (January 1980 to March 2013) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), Scopus, Lilacs and Scielo. The search terms used were “child language”, “primary health care”, “randomized controlled trial” and “intervention studies” (in English, Portuguese and Spanish). There were included any randomized controlled trials that addressed the issues child language and primary health care. The analysis was based on the type of language intervention conducted in primary health care. Results: Seven studies were included and used intervention strategies such as interactive video, guidance for parents and group therapy. Individuals of both genders were included in the seven studies. The age of the children participant in the samples of the articles included in this review ranged from zero to 11 years. These seven studies used approaches that included only parents, parents and children or just children. Conclusion: The mainly intervention in language on primary health care, used in randomized controlled trials, involved the use of interactional video. Several professionals, beyond speech and language therapist, been inserted in the language interventions on primary health care, demonstrating the importance of interdisciplinary work. None of the articles mentioned aspects related to hearing. There was scarcity of randomized controlled trials that address on language and public health, either in Brazil or internationally.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION
Communication may take place by non-verbal means; how-ever, most part of it happens through the conversion of ideas into written and oral languages(1). The absence of language or
its late acquisition, in relation to the chronological and school education, limits expected, may indicate alterations in devel-opment. Great part of these alterations in the evolutive course of language could be solved, in case there was precocious diagnostic and adequate intervention(2).
It is observed that the problems related to language are not properly identiied and that data related to health and primary attention in this area are missing. Between 5 and 8% of pre-school children present a delay in language development, which many time persists throughout the school years into their adult life(3). These alterations are
as-sociated to poor school performance, dificulties in social interactions, and emotional relationships(4). In this sense,
phonoaudiological intervention is necessary to guide the child along the language development process as well as to orient family counseling(1).
Health professionals and educators, mainly the ones who act in the basic attention and in the public school networks, should be a target to training and continued capacitation in order to adequate to needs of the infant population(5). Information
regarding infant language shall be within everyone’s reach so that they orientate and guide the individuals toward the neces-sary interventions(2). The primary health attention is essential
in this process of early detection of language alterations and integral part of the country’s health system. In this context, basic attention leads to health attention as close as possible from the places where people live and work in, setting the irst element of a process of continuous health attention(6).
The phonoaudiological performance, therefore, encom-passes promotion, protection, and health recovery actions in different aspects related to human communication(7). This
action, carried out in teams, is a growing practice in health care and it is characterized by the interaction in professional relationships(8). In the multiprofessional team, the articulation
refers to the recomposing of distinct work processes and, there-fore, to the considering of connection and interfaces among the technical interventions of each professional area(9).
OBJECTIVE
Thus, the objective of this study is to revise systemati-cally the literature on the interventions made in infant language in the primary health care.
METhODS
Research strategy
The MedLine (accessed through PubMed), Scopus, Lilacs, and Scieloelectronic data bases search in the period from January 1980 to March 2013. The terms used for searching were “child language,” “primary health care,” “randomized
controlled trial,” and “intervention studies”, their sub-terms
and their equivalents in Portuguese and Spanish. The search was restricted to studies with samples of families and children up to 12 complete years of age, as considered by the Child and Adolescent Statute(10).
Selection criteria
The studies included in this revision were the ones which would properly describe the kind of intervention used, carried out in the context of basic care, that approaches the themes of infant language and primary health care, classiied as random-ized controlled clinical assays. This classiication was pre-required for the inclusion of the researches in order to maintain the quality of the systematic review. Randomized controlled clinical assays are able to minimize the inluence of harmful factors on the cause–effect relations and also a trusting source of evidences.
The systematic reviews, despite being considered even more relevant, are secondary studies, i.e., they depend on primary studies with enough quality to derive inferences. That is the reason of the importance of randomized clinical assays as source of evidence also to the systemic reviews(11).
There was no restriction as to the expected disclosures in order to increase the sensibility of the research. Articles which would not approach the language theme, would not approach the public health theme and the language intervention in pri-mary care, articles which included only individuals over 12 years of age and would not describe in a trustable way the kind of intervention used were excluded from the study.
Data analysis
The process of data analysis was put together by three stages. In the irst, two independent revisors carried out the reading of the titles and abstracts of the articles identiied by the search strategy. The ones which did not provide suficient information were selected to the second stage called “full evalu-ation of the text phase” along with the ones that did fulill the inclusion criteria.
In the phase of evaluation of the full version of the text, both revisors, independently, analyzed the articles in full and made selections according to the legibility criteria. All dis-agreements among each other were solved by consensus. In the third phase, there was the illing of a standard information form about each included study, containing information about their methodological characteristics, the interventions and the disclosures described in each research. The main data collected were about the interventions in language, with individuals in the infant age range, in the primary health care area.
RESULTS
Individual of both genders were included in 10 studies. The age of the children in the sample of the studies included in this review varied from 0 to 11 years of age. These 10 studies used approaches which included only the parents(12,13), the parents
and the children(14-17),or only the children(18).
The strategies of intervention in language used were programs with both parents, or only with the mother, in order to promote language through shared games(14), shared
reading(14), interactional video(12,14,15), guide book on how to
stimulate language(12), workshops(12), supplies to assist
learn-ing(14), informative brochures(14), newspapers with speciic age
appropriate interactive activity (14), home visits(17), teaching
of mothers on how to deal with your own anxiety and stress signals, facilitating the relationship with their children as well as the development of those(13), the strengthening of the family
bond(16) and group orientations(18), and the preparation for going
to school with the parents. In Table 1 are presented the main characteristics of the studies included in the present review, such as authors, original language, periodical, impact factor,
256 potentially relevant quotes identified in the data bases of MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), Scopus, Lilacs and Scielo
238 excluded studies based on the titles and the abstract
18 studies recuperated to the detailed analysis of this 8 studies excluded on the
basis of eligibility criteria
10 studies included in the present
Figure 1. Diagram of the selection process in the selection
Table 1. Carachteristics of the included studies
Authors Mother
language
Country of Orange
Periodical
(impact factor) Kind of intervention Population (n) Age of the sample
Wake et al. 2011(12) English Australia British Medical Journal
(13.47)
Preventive program of orientation proposed to parents of children with
narrow vocabulary
1,217 families 2 and 3 years
Zelkowitz et al. 2008(13)
English Canada BMC Pediatrics (1.85) Intervention program of support to mothers to
decrease anxiety
92 mothers Pre-terms below 1,500 g
Mendelsohn et al. 2011(14)
English United States
Jama Pediatrics (no data)
Program of preventive intervention in the relation between mother and newly
born
410 mothers 18 to 36 months
Mendelsohn et al. 2007(15)
English United States
Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
(3.02)
Preventive intervention in the relation between parents and
children
99 children 33 months
Love et al. 2005(16) English United
States
Developmental Psychology (no data)
Intervention program to the backup of emotional support
to his parents
3.001 families Pregnant women and children up to 36
years of age
Spittle et al. 2010(17) English Australia Pediatrics (5.78) Preventive intervention
program of households visits
120 families Pre-terms
McCartney et al. 2011(18)
English Reino Unido
International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders (1.85)
Evaluated the efficiency of the therapy made by speech
language therapists and “consulting” style therapy
161 children 6 to 11 years
Lowell et al. 2011(23)
English United Kingdom
Child Development (no data)
Father and son intervention 157 children 6 to 36 months
Sheridan et al. 2011(22)
English United States
Journal of School Psychology (no data)
Preparation to go to school with the parents
217 children 36 to 53 months
Johnston et al. 2006(21)
English United States
Jama Pediatrics (no data)
Program with pregnant women
439 pregnant women
Pregnant women and children up to 30
kind of intervention performed, number of participants, and the average age of the sample.
Most part of the studies(14-17) performed joint interventions
with parents and offspring (children and new borns). One of them(14), performed in a pediatric clinic of a public hospital
of primary care in the United States, aimed to determine the effects of interventions in the relationship of parents and children of 410 low-income families. The irst group, called Video Interaction Project(VIP), took part in sessions with a specialist in infant development and received interventions from the visualization of videos in which occurred the interaction with the child, shared reading and learning supplies (toys and informative brochures). The second group, called Building Blocks, received intervention through an informative suggest-ing interactive activities to each age, and a learnsuggest-ing material. In both cases, there was an increase of the interactions between parents and children in comparison to the control group, which received just the usual pediatric care. However, the irst group presented better results. It was shown that primary interven-tions in the contact of mother and child, including the language, even without a determined age for this intervention. It was also observed that the higher the level of the mother’s education, the better the results of interventions in the children’s development. The VIP approach involves watching videos of moments of interaction between parents and children with the specialist in infant development, highlighting the positive and negative points of the interaction. This technique supports the relation-ship and improves the socioemotional development and the infant language. In the VIP group debates on the expectations and worries of the parents about the child happen, and there is the supplying of the material about infant development. The specialist builds a caring relation with each family, favoring the full development of the child(14,15).
Another study(15) also used the technique of interactional
videos in a primary care program. Ninety-nine children were at development risk due to poverty and low maternal education took part in the study. The direct intervention called VIP was analyzed, compared to a control group. The group that received the VIP intervention improved as to behavior and education, and the parents revealed themselves less stressed out. It was concluded that the pediatric intervention programs in primary care can evolve the general and language development of children in risky situations.
An Australian research(16) included 3,001 families of
dif-ferent races, ethnicities, and languages in the program Early
Head Star, destined to look after low-income pregnant women
and families with babies up to 3 years of age. The program sought to evaluate how much the development of both children and parents improve when there is a fortiication of the family bonds and home and day care visits, parenting orientation, educational and health support and the making of referrals are included. The results showed that children from 0 to 3 years of age who had joined the program presented better cognitive and language performance, higher affective involvement with parents and reduction in aggressive behavior. Parents who joined the program stand out for offering more emotional support, for estimulating the learning of other languages, for
reading more to their children and for presenting lower rates of domestic violence.
Still in the line of infant intervention, another study included in this review(17) evaluated the effectiveness of a program of
pre-ventive home visits during the irst 12 months of life of newly borns, extreme pre-terms and their families. It was veriied the effect of the ViBes Plus Intervention Program, a program of interventions in which the worries of care takers and the strate-gies used, along with the therapist, are approached. The team was formed by a physical therapist and a psychologist, through nine sessions, who observed aspects such as cognition, motor and language development and the interaction of the child with the care taker. The children were evaluated until they completed 2 years of age and there was no difference between the control group and the one which received the intervention. However, the parents of children who received the intervention reported that their children presented less behaviors of emotional disarray, in addition to better performance in everyday tasks. They also reported lower levels of anxiety and depression.
In this sense, the precocious detection of language delay and the knowledge of the risk and protection factors are vital to the organization of infant intervention programs, which have posi-tive effects in the school progress(19). Inadequate educational
practices are related to cognitive and social development in the academic performance of children(20).
Some other studies generated interventions directly with the parents(12-14). Pediatricians, psychologists, and speech language
therapists made low-cost preventive interventions, as well as oriented the parents of children with language delay risk for presenting reduced vocabulary.
In one of the studies(12), through workshops, parents
watched videos of themselves interacting with their children, observing positive and negative aspects and getting informa-tion on how to contribute to the development of the child. The program had the support of videos, a handbook and workshops, and the duration of six weekly sessions of 2 hours. At 3 years of age, most children from both groups reached the ideal score in instrument which measured vocabulary. Although great part of the parents (76%) reported being satisied with the program, the improvement of language or vocabulary was not signiicant. Another study(13) performed an intervention destined to reduce
maternal anxiety and to promote higher interaction among mothers of very low weight new borns, helping with a more adequate interaction and better language development. In the irst group, mothers were oriented to observe physiological, cognitive and anxiety emotional signs, and thereby to use cognitive–behavioral strategies to reduce stress. They were also oriented to understand infant clues and to respond to signals from their children. In the second group, mothers received general information on baby care. Both groups took part of six meetings with a trained professional for the activity, and the forms of intervention reduced maternal anxiety and increaser the mothers’ sensibility, helping the general and language development of the child(13).
development; parental practices; and parents’ well-being. The intervention was performed by four professionals. One group received post birth labor visits and counseling on development; another group, three household visits structured in order to help parents creating a safe and cozy environment and they received screening and interventions related to risk factor such as depression, smoking habits, and domestic abuse. Positive results, especially in vocabulary of the group of children who received the professionals, were observed(21).
A research carried out by Sheridan et al.(22) presents
the re-sults of an intervention which aimed the involvement of the father throughout the preparation for the trip to school, focusing particularly on the language and development of literacy. Two hundred and seventeen children, 211 parents, and 29 teachers from 21 schools took part in the study. Statistically signiicant differences in favor of the group in which parents took part in the intervention were observed, especially in relation to the use of infant language, reading and written abilities, observed over 2 years by the teachers.
The effectiveness of the intervention Child First was ob-served in a study carried out in Bridgeport, in the United States, in the houses of the participant families, through psychothera-peutic care. Mothers who would present risks and children with ages between 6 and 36 months were part of the research. In the 12-months follow-up, the children from the study improved language and externalizing skills, in comparison to the ones submitted to usual care(23).
Only one study(18) included in this review used
interven-tion exclusively with children. It was carried out in the United Kingdom and included children from 6 to 12 years of age from a public school, in order to verify the effectiveness of both kinds of intervention. One of the groups received the commonly used model used in schools from the United Kingdom, in which em-ployees conduct language interventions with the children, after consulting a specialized professional. The action was compared to the one of the group which received usual speech language therapy. The authors concluded that this kind of therapy, when performed by speciic professionals, is more eficient than the intervention performed by school professionals.
There were preventive interventions in most part of the studies included in this review(12,14,15,17). The prevention has
been recognized and used by most professionals involved in the process of development and the search of the child’s quality of life. Considering the importance of precocious detection of disturbs in infant development, identifying the dificulties, seek-ing to monitor the eficiency of the cares and givseek-ing opportunity to precocious intervention must be a priority(21).
Three studies(12,14,15) used the interactional video in
preven-tive primary care programs, a technique to reconsider posipreven-tive and negative aspects of recordings made by specialist in infant development during moments of parents–children interaction, as a way of showing the parents how to regulate their own actions, learning to contribute and stimulate their children’s language. The objective of this technique was to improve lan-guage and socioemotional development of the individuals, the low cost being the main advantage(15). The use of video resource,
and the exhibition of those with later discussion, features as
an important instrument to popular education in health(24). The
importance of the video is in the fact that the images can be interrupted, repeated, and recorded. Besides that, it can be taken anywhere there is a reproducing device(25). Furthermore,
vision and images are the main channel to obtain information by the men(26).
Studies(14,15) performed verbal interventions with games and
shared reading, fundamental for the preparation to school, since the number of children of low socioeconomic level who fall behind in reading level is high, compared to their age range. A research(14) also used auxiliary material in learning, such as
informative brochures with suggestions for the usage of objects, among them toys, books, and lullaby CDs. They also received a mirror and a newspaper with speciic interactive activities for each age, in order to stimulate cognition and verbal language.
The household visits performed were focused on baby’s development, on the relationship between parents and children, and the parents’ mental health(17); teaching mother to notice the
physiological clues, cognitive signals and both their behavior and the children’s(13), having signiicative impact on development of
children, also suggesting visits to specialized centers(16). It was
not observed any impact on cognitive and language development in programs which were solely of household visits, presenting better results when it was associated to other kind of interven-tions, such as visiting specialized centers. The consulting of school professionals, performed in the United Kingdom, was proved to be less eficient than direct therapy with the speech language pathologist (individual or in group)(18), corroborating
the eficiency and the importance of follow-up from specialists in infant development process of children at risk and the ones who already presented language alterations.
In relation to the sociodemographic data, only one study classiied different economic classes(12), dividing the sample into
three classes. Social factors affected the individual biological conditions, risk behaviors, environmental exposure and the access to resources to promote health(27). Two researches(14,16)
selected samples of low socioeconomic level. One study(15)
counted on children with mothers of low education, fact deter-mined as a risk factor to the development of infant language.
The toys and games available at home, the quality of ma-ternal involvement, the number of people who live together and the degree of intellectual and cultural orientation of the closest family members and care takers are intimally related to language development(28). The use of drugs by parents, poverty
and child abuse or negligence are important risk factors to infant development(28). The limited vocabulary from 18 to 24 months
of age was also considered a risk to adequate language de-velopment(12). The socioeconomic factor can also inluence
in vocabulary development, showing that the risk factors are interrelated and deserve special attention by the professionals who work with infant public(29,30).
and specialists in non-speciied infant development(14,15). In
this context, it is highlighted that the trade of knowledge is essential among the various professional areas involved in infant development in order to promote interdisciplinarity, and consequently, to broaden the knowledge of professionals about the development process, turning their look over children into a wider one(31).
Although it is known that hearing is essential for the acqui-sition of oral language(32), none of the randomized controlled
clinical assays included in this review mentioned aspects related to hearing. There are strong reasons for performing hearing screening, such as the impact of hearing loss in cognitive de-velopment, in language acquisition and in social integration(33).
A review of the intervention studies with American children(34)
revealed that the hearing loss, when submitted to treatment before 6 months of age, will allow the child to have a better language development.
Finally, it was observed in this review that there is a shortage of randomized controlled clinical assays regarding language in primary care, both in Brazil and internationally. There is a need of health professionals to rethink their practices, directing them toward the vision of primary care and collective health(35),
considering adequate language as a basic condition for a life of quality.
CONCLUSION
The language interventions in primary health care, used in randomized controlled clinical assays, involve mainly the use of interactional videos. It was also observed that the use of games, shared reading, group workshops and household visits, among other approaches, showing that interventions with the parents result in better development of the children, especially in the language area, whether they are in groups of risk factor or not.
The interventions were carried out before children competed 3 years of age. Other studies show that the irst 3 years of age are critical for the acquisition of information about the world(36).
The precocious intervention implemented is crucial, especially when it is intended to obtain beneits for both children and their families(37).
Several professionals, besides the speech language thera-pists, have been inserted in language intervention in primary care, such as psychologists, physical therapists and social care agents, demonstrating the importance of interdisciplin-ary work among those who work on infant development. This performance develops a new understanding about the user of the public health system, growing a distance from the vision focused in the disease, and pointing out to the aspects of its individualities and familiar and social relationships(38).
None of the studies mentioned aspects related to hearing, but it is known that this is a pre-requirement for the acquisi-tion and development of language, and that the hearing losses affect in an important way, the development of language and speaking(36,38). As limitations for this study there is the choice of
including just randomized controlled clinical assays. Although they are essential for the carrying out of quality systemic
review, some relevant study might have been excluded in the present review.
There was a paucity of the randomized controlled clinical assays, which address to language as a primary care to health, not being found any publications in Brazil about this kind of in-tervention, and little international publications. It is suggested, thus, more studies, in ideal research situations, in order to equip professional who already work with both precocious identiica-tion, giving condition not only to the precocious identiication and adequate intervention, but also to the prevention of infant language alterations and in general children development.
*BCC was responsible for the search, collecting and the data analysis; LGG contributed and supervised the search, collecting and data analysis; GPCN contributed to the collection and the analysis of data; CTR was responsible for the general orientation in the different stages of the execution, supervision, analysis of data, and the elaboration of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Bretanha AC, Ferreira K, Jacob RTS, Moret ALM, Lopes-Herrera SA. Peril pragmático longitudinal de uma criança no espectro da neuropatia auditiva. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2011;16(2):226-32.2.
2. Zorzi JL. A intervenção fonoaudiológica nas alterações linguagem infantil. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 1999.
3. Nelson HD, Nygren P, Walker M, Panoscha R. Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):e298-319. 4. Tomblin JB, Zhang X, Buckwalter P, Catts H. The association of reading
disability, behavioral disorders, and language impairment among second-grade children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2000;41(4):473-82. 5. Bork AMT. Enfermagem baseada em evidências. Rio de Janeiro:
Guanabara Koogan; 2005.
6. 1st Conferência Internacional sobre Cuidados Primários de Saúde; 1978. Organização Mundial da Saúde. United Nations Children’s Fund;1998. 7. Lipay MS, Almeida EC. A fonoaudiologia e sua inserção na saúde
pública. Rev Ciênc Méd. 2007;16(1):31-41.
8. Maclean LM, Plotnikoff RC, Moyer A. Transdisciplinary work with psychology from a population health perspective: an illustration. J Health Psychol. 2000;5(2):173-81.
9. Ciampone MHT, Peduzzi M. Trabalho em equipe e trabalho em grupo no programa de saúde da família. Rev Bras Enferm. 2000;53:143-7. 10. Brasil. Lei nº 8.069, de 13 de julho de 1990. Dispõe sobre o Estatuto
da Criança e do Adolescente e dá outras providências. Brasília: Diário Oicial da União; 1990.
11. Higgins JPT, Green S (Eds.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
12. Wake M, Tobin S, Girolametto L, Ukoumunne OC, Gold L, Levickis P, et al. Outcomes of population based language promotion for slow to talk toddlers at ages 2 and 3 years: Let’s Learn Language cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d4741.
13. Zelkowitz P, Feeley N, Shrier I, Stremler R, Westreich R, Dunkley D, et al. The Cues and Care Trial: a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to reduce maternal anxiety and improve developmental outcomes in very low birthweight infants. BMC Pediatr. 2008;8(38):1471-2431.
14. Mendelsohn AL, Huberman HS, Berkule SB, Brockmeyer CA, Morrow LM, Dreyer BP. Primary care strategies for promotion parent-child interactions and school readiness in at-risk families: the Bellevue Project for Early Language, Literacy, and Education Success. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(1):33-41.
well-child care: impact at 33 months on parenting and on child development. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2007;28(3):206-12.
16. Love JM, Kisker EE, Ross C, Raikes H, Constantine J, Boller K, et al. The effectiveness of early head start for 3-years-old children and their parents: lessons for policy and programs. Dev Psychol. 2005;41(6):885- 901. 17. Spittle AJ, Anderson PJ, Lee KJ, Ferretti C, Eeles A, Orton J, et al.
Preventive care at home for very preterm infants improves infant and caregiver outcomes at 2 years. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):e171-8. 18. McCartney E, Boyle J, Ellis S, Bannatyne S, Turnbull M. Indirect
language therapy for children with persistent language impairment in mainstream primary schools: outcomes from a cohort intervention. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2011;46(1):74-82.
19. Brooks-Gunn J, McCarton CM, Casey PH, McCormick MC, Bauer CR, Bernbaum JC, et al. Early intervention in low-birth-weight premature infants. Results through age 5 year from the Infant Health and Development Program. JAMA. 1994;272(16):1257-62.
20. Gomide PIC, Salvo CG, Pinheiro DPN, Sabbag GM. Correlação entre práticas educativas, depressão, estresse e habilidades sociais. Psico USF. 2005;10(2):169-78.
21. Johnston BD, Huebner CE, Anderson ML, Tyll LT, Thompson RS. Healthy steps in an integrated delivery system: child and parent outcomes at 30 months. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(8):793-800. 22. Sheridan SM, Knoche LL, Kupzyk KA, Edwards CP, Marvin CA. A
randomized trial examining the effects of parent engagement on early language and literacy: the Getting Ready intervention. J Sch Psychol. 2011;49(3):361-83.
23. Lowell DI, Carter AS, Godoy L, Paulicin B, Briggs-Gowan MJ. A randomized controlled trial of child FIRST: a comprehensive home-based intervention translating research into early childhood practice. Child Dev. 2011;82(1):193-208.
24. Dobbing J, Sands J. Vulnerability of developing brain: the effect of nutritional growth retardation on the timing of the brain growth-spurt. Biol Neonatal. 1971;19:363-78.
25. Alburquerque PC, Stotz EN. Popular education in primary care: in search of comprehensive health care. Interface Comun Saúde Educ. 2004;8(15):259-74.
26. Moraes AF. Cultural diversity in health-related videos. Interface Comun Saúde Educ. 2008;12(27):811-22.
27. Ceballos AGC, Cardoso C. Determinantes sociais de alterações fonoaudiológicas. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2009;14(4):441-5. 28. Bosi A. Fenomenologia do olhar. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras;
1993.
29. Gilger JW, Ho HZ, Whipple AD, Spitz R. Genotype-environment correlations for language-related abilities: implications for typical and atypical learners. J Learn Disabil. 2001;34(6):492-502.
30. Widerstrom AH, Mowder BA, Sandall SR. Infant development and risk: an introdution. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 1997.
31. Rowe ML. Child-directed speech: relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. J Child Lang. 2008;35(1):185-205.
32. Fonseca V. Introdução às diiculdades de aprendizagem. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas; 1995.
33. Hilú MRPB, Zeigelboim BS. O conhecimento, a valorização da triagem auditiva neonatal e a intervenção precoce da perda auditiva. Rev CEFAC. 2007;9(4):563-70.
34. Durante AS, Carvallo RMM, Costa MTZ, Cianciarullo MA, Voegels RL, Takahashi GM, et al. Triagem auditiva neonatal: justiicável, possível e necessária. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2003;69(2):11-8.
35. Yoshinaga-Itano C. Early identiication: an opportunity and challenge for audiology. Semin Hear. 1999;20:317-31.
36. Silva RC. A construção da prática fonoaudiológica no nível local norteada pela promoção da saúde no município de Piracicaba (Tese de Mestrado). São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo; 2002.
37. Almeida IC, Carvalho L, Ferreira V, Grande C, Lopes S, Pinto AI, et al. Práticas de intervenção precoce baseadas nas rotinas: um projecto de formação e investigação. Aná Psicológica. 2011;29(1):83-98.
38. Maia DB, Sousa ETG, Gama RM, Lima JC, Rocha PCF, Sassaki Y. Atuação interdisciplinar na Atenção Básica de Saúde: a inserção da residência multiprofissional. Saúde & Transformação Social. 2013;4(1):103-10.
