Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26103919›Full record

Trial reportPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2016

Effects of Home Visitation on Maternal Competencies, Family Environment, and Child Development: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Susan Sierau, Verena Dähne, Tilman Brand, Vivien Kurtz, Kai von Klitzing, Tanja Jungmann

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. SURVEILLANCE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF BRAZIL'S SITUATION.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Susan SierauDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. susan.sierau@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Verena DähneDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Tilman BrandDepartment Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Achterstrasse 30, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Vivien KurtzDepartment Youth and Family, Capital City of Hannover, Sutelstrasse 18, 30659, Hannover, Germany.
Kai von KlitzingDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Tanja JungmannFaculty of Humanities, Institute for Special Educational Intervention and Rehabilitation, University of Rostock, August-Bebel-Strasse 28, 18051, Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on the US Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) program, the German home visiting program "Pro Kind" offered support for socially and financially disadvantaged first-time mothers from pregnancy until the children's second birthday. A multi-centered, longitudinal randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to assess its effectiveness on mothers and children. A total of 755 women with multiple risk factors were recruited, 394 received regular home visits (treatment group), while 361 only had access to standard community services (control group). Program influences on family environment (e.g., quality of home, social support), maternal competencies (e.g., maternal self-efficacy, empathy, parenting style), and child development (e.g., cognitive and motor development) were assessed from mothers' program intake in pregnancy to children's second birthday based on self-reports in regular interviews and developmental tests. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) models showed small, but significant positive treatment effects on parental self-efficacy, and marginally significant effects on social support, and knowledge on child rearing. Maternal stress, self-efficacy, and feelings of attachment in the TG tend to show a more positive development over time. Subgroup effects were found for high-risk mothers in the TG, who reported more social support over time and, generally, had children with higher developmental scores compared to their CG counterparts. Post hoc analyses of implementation variables revealed the quality of the helping relationship as a significant indicator of treatment effects. Results are discussed in terms of implementation and public policy differences between NFP and Pro Kind.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentFamilyHouse CallsAdultChildFemaleHumansPregnancyYoung AdultEarly interventionNurse-family partnershipProgram implementationSocially disadvantaged families

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.