ArticleBMC nursing2019
Implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership programme in England: experiences of key health professionals explored through trial parallel process evaluation.
Article in BMC nursing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics and outcomes associated with fidelity in the Family-Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage cohort study.Archives of disease in childhood · 2025Article
- Effects of the Family Nurse Partnership on all eligible mothers: a data linkage cohort study in England.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the delivery of the family nurse partnership programme in Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2025Article
- Barriers to clinical nurse participation in the internet-based home visiting program: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2023Article
- What contributes to the long-term implementation of an evidence-based early childhood intervention: a qualitative study from Germany.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
- Characteristics of enrolment in an intensive home-visiting programme among eligible first-time adolescent mothers in England: a linked administrative data cohort study.Journal of epidemiology and community 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme was introduced to support young first-time mothers. A randomised trial found FNP added little short-term benefit compared to usual care. The study included a comprehensive parallel process evaluation, including focus groups, conducted to aid understanding of the introduction of the programme into a new service and social context. The aim of the focus groups was to investigate views of key health professionals towards the integration and delivery of FNP programme in England.
methodsFocus groups were conducted separately with Family Nurses, Health Visitors and Midwives at trial sites during 2011-2012. Transcripts from audio-recordings were analysed thematically.
resultsA total of 122 professionals participated in one of 19 focus groups. Family Nurses were confident in the effectiveness of FNP, although they experienced practical difficulties meeting programme fidelity targets and considered that programme goals did not sufficiently reflect client or community priorities. Health Visitors and Midwives regarded FNP as well-resourced and beneficial to clients, describing their own services as undervalued and struggling. They wished to work closely with Family Nurses, but felt excluded from doing so by practical barriers and programme protection.
conclusionFNP was described as well-resourced and delivered by highly motivated and well supported Family Nurses. FNP eligibility, content and outcomes conflicted with individual client and community priorities. These factors may have restricted the potential effectiveness of a programme developed and previously tested in a different social milieu. Building Blocks ISRCTN23019866 Registered 20/04/2009.
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.