Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25830242›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

The effect of VoorZorg, the Dutch nurse-family partnership, on child maltreatment and development: a randomized controlled trial.

Jamila Mejdoubi, Silvia C C M van den Heijkant, Frank J M van Leerdam, Martijn W Heymans, Alfons Crijnen, Remy A Hirasing

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jamila MejdoubiEMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Silvia C C M van den HeijkantEMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Frank J M van LeerdamDutch Health Care Inspectorate, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Martijn W HeymansDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Alfons CrijnenDe Waag, Center for Forensic Services, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Remy A HirasingEMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChild maltreatment is a great public health concern that has long-term mental and physical health consequences and can result in death. We studied the effect of a nurse home visiting program on child maltreatment among young disadvantaged families in The Netherlands. This study is the first to investigate the effects of this program outside of the United States.

methodsWe conducted a single blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial that compared usual care with the nurse home visitation program, which began during pregnancy and continued until the children's second birthdays, in 460 disadvantaged women who were pregnant for the first time and <26 years of age. The primary outcome was the existence of a report about the child from a child protecting services agency (CPS reports). Secondary outcome measures included home environment and child behavior.

resultsTwo hundred twenty-three participants were assigned to the control group, and 237 were assigned to the intervention group. Three years after birth, 19% of the children in the control group had a CPS report. The 11 percent of children in the intervention group with CPS files was significantly lower (relative risk 0.91, p-value 0.04). At 24 months, the intervention group scored significantly better on the IT-HOME. At 24 months after birth, the children in the intervention group exhibited a significant improvement in internalizing behavior (relative risk 0.56, p-value 0.04) but no evidence of a difference from the control group in externalizing behavior (relative risk 0.71, p-value 0.12).

conclusionThe number of CPS reports for the intervention group was significantly lower than that of the control group. Additionally, the long-term home environments were improved and internalizing behaviors of the children were lower in the intervention group.

trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR854.

Indexed as

Child AbuseFamilyGrowth and DevelopmentHouse CallsNursesOutcome Assessment, Health CareAdultChildFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID25830242
PMCPMC4382107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.