Effectiveness of home visiting programs on child outcomes: a systematic review

Shelley Peacock, Stephanie Konrad, Erin Watson, Darren Nickel, Nazeem Muhajarine, Shelley Peacock, Stephanie Konrad, Erin Watson, Darren Nickel, Nazeem Muhajarine

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of paraprofessional home-visitations on improving the circumstances of disadvantaged families is unclear. The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the effectiveness of paraprofessional home-visiting programs on developmental and health outcomes of young children from disadvantaged families.

Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (e.g., CINAHL PLUS, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE) from 1990 through May 2012 was supplemented by reference lists to search for relevant studies. Through the use of reliable tools, studies were assessed in duplicate. English language studies of paraprofessional home-visiting programs assessing specific outcomes for children (0-6 years) from disadvantaged families were eligible for inclusion in the review. Data extraction included the characteristics of the participants, intervention, outcomes and quality of the studies.

Results: Studies that scored 13 or greater out of a total of 15 on the validity tool (n = 21) are the focus of this review. All studies are randomized controlled trials and most were conducted in the United States. Significant improvements to the development and health of young children as a result of a home-visiting program are noted for particular groups. These include: (a) prevention of child abuse in some cases, particularly when the intervention is initiated prenatally; (b) developmental benefits in relation to cognition and problem behaviours, and less consistently with language skills; and (c) reduced incidence of low birth weights and health problems in older children, and increased incidence of appropriate weight gain in early childhood. However, overall home-visiting programs are limited in improving the lives of socially high-risk children who live in disadvantaged families.

Conclusions: Home visitation by paraprofessionals is an intervention that holds promise for socially high-risk families with young children. Initiating the intervention prenatally and increasing the number of visits improves development and health outcomes for particular groups of children. Future studies should consider what dose of the intervention is most beneficial and address retention issues.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of selection process.

References

    1. Statistics Canada. Study: Family income and the well-being of children, 1994-1998. . 2006. [Accessed 1 November 2010]
    1. Gomby D. Home visitation in 2005: Outcomes for children and parents. Invest in kids working paper no. 7. Committee for economic development invest in kids working group. 2005. [Accessed 1 November 2010]
    1. Zercher C, Spiker D. In: Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online] Tremblay RE, Barr RG, Peters R, editor. Montreal, QC: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development,; 2004. Home visiting programs and their impact on young children. 1-8. Available at: .
    1. Elkan R, Kendrick D, Hewitt M, Robinson J, Tolley K, Blair M, George B. The effectiveness of domiciliary health visiting: A systematic review of international studies and a selective review of the British literature. Health Tech Assess. 2000;4(13):i–v. 1-339.
    1. Olds D, Sadler L, Kitzman H. Programs for parents of infants and toddlers: Recent evidence from randomized trials. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48:355–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01702.x.
    1. Sikorski J, Renfrew M, Pindoria SAW. Support for breastfeeding mothers. Database Syst Rev. 2012. Art No: CD00141.pub 4.
    1. Sweet M, Appelbaum M. Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Dev. 2004;74(5):1435–1456.
    1. Bilukha O, Hahn R, Crosby A, Fullilove M, Liberman A, Moscicki E. et al.The effectiveness of early childhood home visitation in preventing violence: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):11–39.
    1. Geeraert L, Noortage W, Grietens H, Onghena P. The effects of early prevention programs for families with young children at risk for physical abuse and neglect: A meta-analysis. Child Maltreat. 2004;9(3):277–291. doi: 10.1177/1077559504264265.
    1. MacLeod J, Nelson G. Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child maltreatment. A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse Negl. 2000;24(9):1127–1149. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00178-2.
    1. Forbes D. Strategies for managing behavioural symptomatology associated with dementia of the Alzheimer's type: A systematic overview. Can J Nur Res. 1998;30:67–86.
    1. Peacock S, Forbes D. Interventions for caregivers of persons with dementia: a systematic review. Can J Nur Res. 2003;35:88–107.
    1. Aracena M, Krause M, Perez C, Mendez MJ, Salvatierra L, Soto M, Pantoja T, Navarro S, Salinas A, Farah C. et al.A cost-effectiveness evaluation of a home visit program for adolescent mothers. J Health Psychol. 2009;14:878–887. doi: 10.1177/1359105309340988.
    1. Barth RP. An experimental evaluation of in-home child abuse prevention services. Child Abuse Negl. 1991;15:363–375. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(91)90021-5.
    1. Black MM, Dubowitz H, Hutcheson J, Berenson-Howard J, Starr RH. A randomized clinical trial of home intervention for children with failure to thrive. Pediatr. 1995;95:807–814.
    1. Bugental DB, Ellerson PC, Lin EK, Rainey B, Kokotovic A, O'Hara N. A cognitive approach to child abuse prevention. J Fam Psychol. 2002;16:243–258.
    1. Caldera D, Burrell L, Rodriguez K, Crowne SS, Rohde C, Duggan A. Impact of a statewide home visiting program on parenting and on child health and development. Child Abuse Negl. 2007;31:829–852. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.008.
    1. Cupples ME, Stewart MC, Percy A, Hepper P, Murphy C, Halliday HL. A RCT of peer-mentoring for first-time mothers in socially disadvantaged areas (The MOMENTS Study) Arch Dis Child. 2011;96:252–258. doi: 10.1136/adc.2009.167387.
    1. Duggan A, Fuddy L, Burrell L, Higman SM, McFarlane E, Windham A, Sia C. Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse: impact in reducing parental risk factors. Child Abuse Negl. 2004;28:623–643. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.008.
    1. Duggan A, McFarlane E, Fuddy L, Burrell L, Higman SM, Windham A, Sia C. Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program: impact in preventing child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Negl. 2004;28:597–622. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.007.
    1. Duggan A, Berlin LJ, Cassidy J, Burrell L, Tandon D. Examining maternal depression and attachment insecurity as moderators of the impacts of home visiting for at-risk mothers and infants. J Consult Clin Psych. 2009;77:788–799.
    1. DuMont K, Mitchell-Herzfeld S, Green R, Lee E, Lowenfels A, Rodriguez M, Dorabawila V. Healthy Families New York (HFNY) randomized trial: Effects on early child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Negl. 2008;32:295–315. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.07.007.
    1. Grantham-McGregor SM, Powell CA, Walker SP, Himes JH. Nutritional supplementation, psychosocial stimulation, and mental development of stunted children: the Jamaican study. Lancet. 1991;338:1–5. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90001-6.
    1. Hamadani JD, Huda SN, Khatun F, Grantham-McGregor SM. Psychosocial stimulation improves the development of undernourished children in rural Bangladesh. J Nutr. 2006;136:2645–2652.
    1. Johnson Z, Howell F, Molloy B. Community mothers' programme: randomized controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting. Br Med J. 1993;306:1449–1452. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1449.
    1. Kartin D, Grant TN, Streissguth AP, Sampson PD, Ernst CC. Three-year developmental outcomes in children with prenatal alcohol and drug exposure. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2002;14:145–153. doi: 10.1097/00001577-200214030-00004.
    1. King TM, Rosenberg LA, Fuddy L, McFarlane E, Sia C, Duggan AK. Prevalence and early identification of language delays among at-risk three year olds. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005;26:293–303. doi: 10.1097/00004703-200508000-00006.
    1. Lee E, Mitchell-Herzfeld SD, Lowenfels AA, Green R, Dorabawila V, DuMont KA. Reducing low birth weight through home visitation: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36:154–160. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.029.
    1. Le Roux IM, Le Roux K, Comulada WS, Greco EM, Desmond KA, Mbewu N, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Home visits by neighborhood mentor mothers provide timely recovery from childhood malnutrition in South Africa: results from a randomized controlled trial. Nutr J. 2010;9(56):1–10.
    1. McLaughlin FJ, Altemeier WA, Christensen MJ, Sherrod KB, Dietrich MS, Stern DT. Randomized trial of comprehensive prenatal care for low-income women: Effect on infant birth weight. Pediatr. 1992;89:128–132.
    1. Nair P, Schuler ME, Black MM, Kettinger L, Harrington D. Cumulative environmental risk in substance abusing women: early intervention, parenting stress, child abuse potential and child development. Child Abuse Negl. 2003;27:997–1017. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00169-8.
    1. Necoechea DM. Children at-risk for poor school readiness: The effect of an early intervention home visiting program on children and parents [dissertation] Riverside: University of California; 2007.
    1. Scheiwe A, Hardy R, Watt RG. Four-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trail of a social support intervention on infant feeding practices. Matern Child Nutr. 2010;6:328–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8709.2009.00231.x.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する