ArticleMaternal and child health journal2019
Evaluation of the Implementation of the Healthy Start Program: Findings from the 2016 National Healthy Start Program Survey.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2025Article
- Tailoring Perinatal Health Communication: Centering the Voices of Mothers at Risk for Maternal Mortality and Morbidity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The Healthy Start Program has taken a community-based approach to improving maternal and child health outcomes among underserved populations for 25 years. Although the program has been evaluated in the past, it has not undergone a national evaluation since it was transformed in 2014. The purpose of this study is to present data from an early component of the latest national evaluation-the 2016 National Healthy Start Program Survey, which includes information describing grantees, the risk profile of participants served, and the scope of services offered to meet participant needs. Methods Ninety-five grantees completed the survey, and responses are reported at the aggregate level. Study analyses are descriptive. Results Grantees reported serving a population with a high-risk profile characterized by chronic medical conditions or risk behaviors. Most grantees conduct comprehensive needs/risk assessments for participants upon program entry, yet service delivery strategies were mixed, with some differences found by geographic region. Grantees provide a core set of services to participants, including case management and health promotion/education, and tend to refer participants to community providers for services that are deemed appropriate during individual risk assessments. While most grantees have protocols in place related to these priority services, participants may not have been universally offered all services across sites. Conclusions for Practice Although grantees often highlight their facilitation of service/care coordination with existing resources, findings suggest potential areas on which to focus strategic efforts to ensure that the Healthy Start Program is successfully bridging gaps in access and utilization of services for underserved communities.
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.