Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

211LA care coordination does not improve developmental outcomes in children aged 21 to 42 monthsCare Coordination Shows No Change in Early Childhood Development

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that 211LA care coordination did not result in improved developmental outcomes or language skills in children.

This randomized controlled trial enrolled 499 children aged 21 to 42 months to evaluate the impact of 211LA care coordination compared to usual care. The primary outcomes were changes in PEDS-DM-AL and CBCL scores over a 24-month follow-up period.

Regarding secondary outcomes, expressive and receptive language skills mastered showed no significant change over time and no difference between the intervention and control groups (P >.9). Similarly, T scores for autism, attention, aggression, and externalizing behavior showed no clinically significant change over time or difference between groups (P >.4).

Safety data, including adverse events and tolerability, were not reported. The study noted several limitations, including the overrepresentation of a specific subset of historically underrepresented families, the suboptimal performance of the developmental assessment tool, and the complexities of conducting a large-scale trial during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinically, the study measured the indirect influence of service enrollment through 211LA care coordination. While coordination may increase service enrollment, it did not result in measurable improvements in developmental outcomes for this population. Results should be interpreted with caution due to potential confounding factors related to demographic distribution and pandemic-related conditions.

Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial to see if a specific care coordination program, known as 211LA, helped children between 21 and 42 months old. The study followed 499 children over a period of 24 months. The goal was to see if extra coordination helped children improve their language skills and manage behaviors like aggression or attention issues.

The results showed no significant differences between the children who received the extra coordination and those who received standard care. Specifically, there were no measurable improvements in expressive or receptive language skills. Additionally, scores for autism, attention, aggression, and other externalizing behaviors remained similar between both groups.

There are several reasons why the results may be unclear. The study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the tools used to measure development may not have performed well. While the program helped more families sign up for services, these extra enrollments did not translate into better developmental outcomes for the children. These findings suggest that while coordination helps with access, it may not directly change developmental milestones.

What this means for you:
The study found that extra care coordination did not improve language or behavior scores in toddlers.

Common questions

Did the care coordination program help children's language skills?

The study found no clinically significant change in expressive or receptive language skills over 24 months. There was no difference between the children who received the 211LA care coordination and those who received usual care. The results were not statistically significant for these language skills.

Did the program improve behavior or attention scores?

The study found no significant changes in scores for autism, attention, aggression, and externalizing behavior. The results showed no difference between the two groups of children, meaning the extra coordination did not change these specific behavioral outcomes.

Why didn't the program show better results for development?

The researchers noted several factors that could have influenced the results. These included the challenges of conducting a large study during the COVID-19 pandemic, the performance of the assessment tools, and the specific mix of families involved in the study.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 499
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up24.0 mo
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Early screening for developmental concerns enables timely diagnosis and referral, yet many families face barriers accessing services. Prior work showed that early childhood care coordination could improve timely service connection. This study assessed developmental outcomes among children participating in a randomized controlled trial of Information and Referral Federation of Los Angeles County (211LA). METHODS: Participants, aged 21-42 months, were randomized to usual care or the 211LA intervention. Developmental and behavioral measures, including the Parental Evaluation of Developmental Status Developmental Milestones Assessment Level (PEDS-DM-AL) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), were collected at baseline and 24 months later. The sample included 499 participants, 250 in the 211LA intervention and 249 in usual care. Primary analyses examined changes in PEDS-DM-AL and CBCL scores over the 24-month period by study arm. Post hoc analyses compared family characteristics between intervention and control families who enrolled in services. RESULTS: Developmental and behavioral measures showed some clinically insignificant change over time, but these changes did not differ by condition (expressive/receptive language skills mastered: P > .9; autism, attention, aggression, and externalizing behavior T scores: P > .4). Post hoc analyses identified potentially relevant imbalances between the treatment arms at baseline as well as in the subgroup that enrolled in services, with families assigned to the 211LA intervention being more likely to have a non-US born parent and a parent with limited English proficiency compared with families assigned to usual care. Intervention families enrolled in services also used telehealth more frequently and received a lower duration of services than those receiving usual care. CONCLUSIONS: This study measured the indirect influence of service enrollment through 211LA care coordination on developmental outcomes. Although increased service enrollment through 211LA did not affect developmental outcomes, we hypothesize this may be because of several factors, including overrepresentation of a subset of historically underrepresented families in the 211LA intervention, suboptimal performance of our developmental assessment tool, and complexity of conducting a trial of this magnitude during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have diminished the ability of this trial to demonstrate developmental benefits despite demonstrated service enrollment gains.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.