ReviewMaternal and child health journal2015
Perinatal program evaluations: methods, impacts, and future goals.
Review in Maternal and child health journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- What is a Good Outcome of an Inpatient Perinatal Mental Health Admission? Developing an Innovative Evaluation Plan for a New Unit.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Participant Perspectives on a Community Health Worker Intervention to Reduce Infant Mortality: A Mixed Methods Assessment of the Bronx Healthy Start Partnership.Maternal and child health journal · 2025Article
- A Methodological Approach for Evaluating the Enterprise Community Healthy Start Program in Rural Georgia: An Analysis Using Linked PRAMS, Birth Records and Program Data.Maternal and child health journal · 2021Article
- Comparison of reproductive history gathered by interview and by vital records linkage after 40 years of follow-up: Bogalusa Babies.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Conditions and Dynamics That Impact Maternal Health Literacy among High Risk Prenatal-Interconceptional Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this methodology note is to examine perinatal program evaluation methods as they relate to the life course health development model (LCHD) and risk reduction for poor birth outcomes. We searched PubMed, CDC, ERIC, and a list from the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP) to identify sources. We included reports from theory, methodology, program reports, and instruments, as well as reviews of Healthy Start Programs and home visiting. Because our review focused upon evaluation methods we did not include reports that described the Healthy Start Program. The LCHD model demonstrates the non-linear relationships among epigenetic factors and environmental interactions, intentionality or worldview within a values framework, health practices, and observed outcomes in a lifelong developmental health trajectory. The maternal epigenetic and social environment during fetal development sets the stage for the infant's lifelong developmental arc. The LCHD model provides a framework to study challenging maternal child health problems. Research that tracks the long term maternal-infant health developmental trajectory is facilitated by multiple, linked public record systems. Two instruments, the life skills progression instrument and the prenatal risk overview are theoretically consistent with the LCHD and can be adapted for local or population-based use. A figure is included to demonstrate a method of reducing interaction among variables by sample definition. Both in-place local programs and tests of best practices in community-based research are needed to reduce unacceptably high infant mortality. Studies that follow published reporting standards strengthen evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25636650What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.