ArticleMaternal and child health journal2017
Design and Operation of the Transformed National Healthy Start Evaluation.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2017. 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.
- Addressing Pregnancy-Associated Morbidity and Mortality from Violence: A Summary of CDC Activities.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2026Article
- Community Healthy Workers Fill in the Gaps for Participants Who Became Lost to Follow-up in a Healthy Start Program.Maternal and child health journal · 2021Article
- 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
- Associations Between a Healthy Start Program Prenatal Risk Screening Tool and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Study Using the Mother/Infant Dyad Screening Cohort.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Implementation of the Healthy Start Program: Findings from the 2016 National Healthy Start Program Survey.Maternal and child health journal · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Improving pregnancy outcomes for women and children is one of the nation's top priorities. The Healthy Start (HS) program was created to address factors that contribute to high infant mortality rates (IMRs) and persistent disparities in IMRs. The program began in 1991 and was transformed in 2014 to apply lessons from emerging research, past evaluation findings, and expert recommendations. To understand the implementation and impact of the transformed program, there is a need for a robust and comprehensive evaluation. Description The national HS evaluation will include an implementation evaluation, which will describe program components that affect outcomes; a utilization evaluation, which will examine the characteristics of women and infants who did and did not utilize the program; and an outcome evaluation, which will assess the program's effectiveness with regard to producing expected outcomes among the target population. Data sources include the National HS Program Survey, a HS participant survey, and individual-level program data linked to vital records and the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) survey. Assessment Descriptive analyses will be used to examine differences in risk profiles between participants and non-participants, as well as to calculate penetration rates for high-risk women in respective service areas. Multivariable analyses will be used to determine the impact of the program on key outcomes and will explore variation by dose, type of services received, and grantee characteristics. Conclusion Evaluation findings are expected to inform program decisions and direction, including identification of effective program components that can be spread and scaled.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.