ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
The Evidence Base for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Constructs.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combinations of adverse childhood events and risk of postpartum depression among mothers enrolled in a home visiting program.Annals of epidemiology · 2020Article
- The role of home visiting in addressing postpartum care gaps: Evidence from a large community sample.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe federal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program requires grantees to demonstrate program improvement as a condition of funding. The MIECHV program monitors grantee progress in federally mandated conceptual areas (ie, benchmarks) that are further subcategorized into related sub-areas or constructs (eg, breastfeeding). Each construct has an associated performance measure that helps MIECHV collect data on program implementation and performance. In 2016, MIECHV modified the constructs and associated performance measures required of grantees. Our objective was to identify whether the constructs were supported by the home visiting literature.
methodsWe conducted an evaluation of one of the MIECHV program's benchmarks (Benchmark 1: Maternal and Newborn Health) for alignment of the Benchmark 1 constructs (preterm birth, breastfeeding, depression screening, well-child visit, postpartum care, and tobacco cessation referrals) with home visiting evidence. In March 2016, we searched the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness database for all publicly available articles on studies conducted in the United States to determine how well the study findings aligned with the MIECHV program constructs.
resultsOf 59 articles reviewed, only 3 of the 6 MIECHV constructs-preterm birth, breastfeeding, and well-child visits-were supported by home visiting evidence.
conclusionsThis evaluation highlights a limited evidence base for the MIECHV Benchmark 1 constructs and a need to clarify other criteria, beyond evidence, used to choose constructs and associated performance measures. One implication of not having evidence-based performance measures is a lack of confidence that the program will drive positive outcomes. If performance measures are not evidence based, it is difficult to attribute positive outcomes to the home visiting services.
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.