ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2018
Ontario's Healthy Babies Healthy Children Screen tool: identifying postpartum families in need of home visiting services in Ottawa, Canada.
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2018. 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.
- Social determinants of health screening and interventions in neonatal care pathways (NICU to follow-up): a scoping review.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Screening for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders in Obstetric Settings.Current psychiatry reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
interventionAcross Ontario, the Healthy Babies Healthy Children (HBHC) postpartum screening tool is routinely used to identify families with potential risk of negative development outcomes for children. RESEARCH QUESTION: To identify screening questions associated with subsequent high-risk in-depth assessment (IDA) in order to prioritize services.
methodsOttawa families who gave birth (2013-2016) consented to the postpartum HBHC Screen (N = 29,162). Maternal socio-demographics, perinatal indicators, and 36 questions assessing pregnancy/birth, family, parenting, infant development, and health professional observations were analyzed for association with a high-risk IDA using regression analysis.
resultsUpon first screen, 51% of families scored two or more risks. Most commonly, labour/delivery complications (27%), previous loss (26%), health professional concerns (22%), and mental illness (17%) were identified. Among IDA completions, 41% were assessed as high risk and this proportion increased when screened with 4+ risks. Characteristics associated with high-risk IDA among families scoring two or three included the following: maternal age ≤ 19 years (aRR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.50-2.80), 20-29 years (1.3, 1.12-1.53), ≥ 35 years (1.2, 1.04-1.45); combination breast and formula feeding on discharge (1.2, 1.03-1.37); < 18 years old at birth of first child (1.7, 1.13-2.43); single parent and no partner involved (1.6, 1.07-2.33); high school incomplete (1.8, 1.45-2.35); newcomer support needed (1.8, 1.43-2.17); financial concerns (1.6, 1.27-2.14); history of mental illness (1.2, 1.01-1.33); and parent disability (1.7, 1.09-2.78).
conclusionWhile offering the IDA when scoring 2+ risks is a provincial requirement, practices of increasing effort toward contacting families screened with 4+ risks are substantiated. An adapted approach to prioritize families screened with two or three risks is described.
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.