ArticleAIMS public health2015
Access to Difficult-to-reach Population Subgroups: A Family Midwife Based Home Visiting Service for Implementing Nutrition-related Preventive Activities - A Mixed Methods Explorative Study.
Article in AIMS public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mixed Methods Studies Using Secondary Analysis in Nursing and Midwifery: A Methodological Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Preuse Acceptance of a Family-Centered, Need-Based, and Interprofessional Perinatal Care Mobile Health Intervention: Exploratory Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health and social inequality are tightly linked and still pose an important public health problem. However, vulnerable and disadvantaged populations are difficult to reach for health-related interventions. Given the long-lasting effects of an adverse, particular nutrition-related, intrauterine and neonatal environment on health development (perinatal programming), an early and easy access is essential for sustainable interventions. The goal of this explorative study was therefore to elucidate whether an existing access of family midwives (FMs) to families in need of support could be an option to implement effective public health and nutrition interventions. To that end three research objectives were formulated: (1) to determine whether a discernible impact of home visits by FMs can be described; (2) to identify subgroups among these families in need of more specific interventions; (3) to determine how relevant nutrition-related topics are for both FMs and the supported families. For addressing these objectives a mixed methods design was used: Routine documentation data from 295 families visited by a family midwife (FM) were analyzed (secondary analysis), and structured expert interviews with FMs were conducted and analyzed. Study reporting followed the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) statement. Based on the FMs reports, a significant improvement (p < 0.001) regarding psycho-social variables could be determined after the home visits. Single mothers, however, seemed to benefit less from the FMs service compared to their counterparts (p = 0.015). Nutritional counseling was demanded by 89% of the families during the home visits. In addition, nutrition-related topics were reported in the interviews to be of high interest to both families and the FMs. Based on the obtained results it is concluded that FMs home visits offer a promising access to vulnerable and disadvantaged families for implementing nutrition-related preventive activities.
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.