Academic pediatrics · 2026
Culturally Effective Care for Dual Language Learners: Pediatric Providers' Language Promotion and Developmental Surveillance.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guendica Milton, Chen Yu, Canfield Caitlin F, Miller-Fitzwater Anna, Glusman Mariana, Weisleder Adriana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Culturally effective care for dual-language learners (DLLs) should incorporate evidence-based guidance on bilingual language development. This study assessed pediatric providers' knowledge of bilingualism and provision of culturally effective language promotion and developmental surveillance for DLLs. We also investigated provider-level factors related to these practices.
METHODS: Pediatric providers (N=349) who conduct birth-five well-child visits completed an online survey that asked about: knowledge of bilingual language development, self-reported language promotion with DLLs, difficulty identifying language delays, and application of culturally effective language promotion and developmental surveillance in clinical vignettes.
RESULTS: The percent of providers who agreed with the evidence-based statements testing knowledge of bilingual language development ranged from 26% to 98% depending on the statement. The percent of providers who self-reported frequently providing culturally effective language promotion to DLLs ranged from 36% to 93% depending on the item. Most (79%) providers reported difficulty identifying language delays in DLLs in cases of language non-concordance, compared to 38% in cases of language concordance and 7% for monolinguals. The percent of providers who responded correctly to hypothetical clinical vignettes ranged from 29% to 95% depending on the vignette. Providers who were bilingual, had received bilingualism training, encountered more DLL patients, and were more knowledgeable about bilingualism reported engaging in more culturally effective care.
CONCLUSION: This study revealed gaps in pediatric providers' knowledge and provision of culturally effective language promotion and developmental surveillance for DLLs. Promoting a linguistically diverse workforce and providing training on bilingualism may be important ways to support families of DLLs.
METHODS: Pediatric providers (N=349) who conduct birth-five well-child visits completed an online survey that asked about: knowledge of bilingual language development, self-reported language promotion with DLLs, difficulty identifying language delays, and application of culturally effective language promotion and developmental surveillance in clinical vignettes.
RESULTS: The percent of providers who agreed with the evidence-based statements testing knowledge of bilingual language development ranged from 26% to 98% depending on the statement. The percent of providers who self-reported frequently providing culturally effective language promotion to DLLs ranged from 36% to 93% depending on the item. Most (79%) providers reported difficulty identifying language delays in DLLs in cases of language non-concordance, compared to 38% in cases of language concordance and 7% for monolinguals. The percent of providers who responded correctly to hypothetical clinical vignettes ranged from 29% to 95% depending on the vignette. Providers who were bilingual, had received bilingualism training, encountered more DLL patients, and were more knowledgeable about bilingualism reported engaging in more culturally effective care.
CONCLUSION: This study revealed gaps in pediatric providers' knowledge and provision of culturally effective language promotion and developmental surveillance for DLLs. Promoting a linguistically diverse workforce and providing training on bilingualism may be important ways to support families of DLLs.