Comparative Outcomes of Teacher Coaching Versus Parent-Implemented Intervention for Preschoolers at Risk of Developmental Delay in Thailand

dc.contributor.authorRungamornrat S.
dc.contributor.authorPongsaranuntakul Y.
dc.contributor.authorSangngam J.
dc.contributor.authorNookong A.
dc.contributor.correspondenceRungamornrat S.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-15T18:22:01Z
dc.date.available2026-03-15T18:22:01Z
dc.date.issued2026-01-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: Early childhood developmental delays are a major concern in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where gaps often exist between developmental surveillance and follow-up support. In Thailand, the Developmental Surveillance and Promotion Manual (DSPM) provides a national framework for screening and promotion; however, practical models for integrating DSPM guidance into daily classroom and home routines in community daycare settings remain limited. Aim: To compare two brief nurse-facilitated implementation models—teacher coaching using practice-based coaching (PBC) and a parent-implemented intervention (PII)—and examine their effects on adult practices and short-term developmental outcomes in preschool children at risk of delay. Methods: A quasi-experimental, two-group pretest–posttest study was conducted in two community daycare centers. Forty-nine at-risk children and primary caregivers were enrolled (PBC: 26 dyads; PII: 23 dyads), along with 17 teachers (PBC: 8; PII: 9). Each center implemented one model over a 4-week intervention period with follow-up assessment approximately 4 weeks later. Outcomes included teacher developmental knowledge, teacher and caregiver developmental-promotion behaviors, and child pass/fail status across five DSPM domains. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using 2 × 2 mixed-design repeated-measures ANOVA; within-center domain changes used exact McNemar’s tests. Results: Teacher knowledge improved over time, and the magnitude of improvement differed between models (group-by-time interaction), with larger gains in the PII center than the PBC center. Teacher and caregiver developmental-promotion behaviors improved significantly from pre to post (main effects of time), while group-by-time interactions were not significant, indicating comparable behavioral gains across pathways. Within-center DSPM analyses suggested short-term reductions in delayed status in selected domains in both centers. Conclusion: Both PBC and PII were feasible in community daycare settings and associated with meaningful short-term improvements in adult developmental-promotion practices and selected DSPM domains. Child domain patterns should be interpreted descriptively because DSPM changes were analyzed within centers rather than as between-model contrasts to inform service planning and scale-up. Trial Registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR): TCTR20250106003.
dc.identifier.citationNursing Research and Practice Vol.2026 No.1 (2026)
dc.identifier.doi10.1155/nrp/6653365
dc.identifier.eissn20901437
dc.identifier.issn20901429
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105032262714
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/115702
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectNursing
dc.titleComparative Outcomes of Teacher Coaching Versus Parent-Implemented Intervention for Preschoolers at Risk of Developmental Delay in Thailand
dc.typeArticle
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=105032262714&origin=inward
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.titleNursing Research and Practice
oaire.citation.volume2026
oairecerif.author.affiliationMahidol University

Files

Collections