Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29429135›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2018

A Qualitative Exploration of Co-location as an Intervention to Strengthen Home Visiting Implementation in Addressing Maternal Child Health.

Katherine S Kellom, Meredith Matone, Aderinola Adejare, Frances K Barg, David M Rubin, Peter F Cronholm

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rural maternal health interventions: A scoping review and implications for best practices.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Service Coordination in Early Childhood Home Visiting: a Multiple-Case Study.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine S KellomPolicyLab, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.
Meredith MatonePolicyLab, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.
Aderinola AdejareThe Ohio State University College of Medicine, 370 W 9th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Frances K BargMixed Methods Research Lab, University of Pennsylvania, 51 N. 39th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
David M RubinPolicyLab, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.
Peter F CronholmMixed Methods Research Lab, University of Pennsylvania, 51 N. 39th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. peter.cronholm@uphs.upenn.edu.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia · USThe Ohio State University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this paper is to explore the process and impact of co-locating evidence-based maternal and child service models to inform future implementation efforts. Methods As part of a state-wide evaluation of maternal and child home visiting programs, we conducted semi-structured interviews with administrators and home visitors from home visiting agencies across Pennsylvania. We collected 33 interviews from 4 co-located agencies. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe the key elements mitigating implementation of multiple home visiting models. Results A primary advantage of co-location described by participants was the ability to increase the agency's base of eligible clients through the implementation of a model with different program eligibility (e.g. income, child age) than the existing agency offering. Model differences related to curriculum (e.g. content or intensity/meeting frequency) enabled programs to more selectively match clients to models. To recruit eligible clients, new models were able to build upon the existing service networks of the initial program. Co-location provided organizational opportunities for shared trainings, enabling administrative efficiencies and collaborative staff learning. Programs implemented strategies to build synergies with complementary model features, for instance using the additional program option to serve waitlisted clients and to transition services after one model is completed. Conclusions for Practice Considerable benefits are experienced when home visiting models co-locate. This research builds on literature encouraging collaboration among community agencies and provides insight on a specific facilitative approach. This implementation strategy informs policy across the social services spectrum and competitive funding contexts.

Indexed as

Child HealthPostnatal CareChildDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHome Care ServicesHumansInterviews as TopicMaternal-Child Health ServicesPennsylvaniaPregnancyQualitative ResearchCFIREarly childhood systemHome visitingImplementation strategiesQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID29429135
OpenAlexW2791267710

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.