ArticlePloS one2019
Quality of delivery of "right@home": Implementation evaluation of an Australian sustained nurse home visiting intervention to improve parenting and the home learning environment.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the "right@home" randomized trial of nurse home visiting using linked administrative data at school transition.International journal of population data science · 2024Trial
- Does customised care improve satisfaction and positively enable parents in sustained home visiting for mothers and children experiencing adversity?BMC health services research · 2022Trial
- Nurse home visiting to improve child and maternal outcomes: 5-year follow-up of an Australian randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Variations in sustained home visiting care for mothers and children experiencing adversity.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2022Trial
- Translating 'proportionate universal healthcare' into meaningful system design to optimize equity in child and family services.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Article
- Magnitude, disparity, and predictors of poor-quality antenatal care service: A systematic review and meta-analysis.SAGE open medicine · 2024Review
- "You do need to do the interaction": Mothers' perceptions of responsive parenting following a home-based parenting intervention.Infant mental health journal · 2023Article
- Having to manage: culturally and linguistically diverse mothers' lived experiences with sustained nurse home visiting programs.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Parent satisfaction with sustained home visiting care for mothers and children: an integrative review.BMC health services research · 2022Review
- Mothers' Experiences with Child Protection Services: Using Qualitative Feminist Poststructuralism.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2021Article
- Empowering Public Health Nurses and Community Home Visitors through Effective Communication Relationships.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2021Article
- Fidelity Assessment Checklist Development for Community Nursing Research in Early Childhood.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHome visiting programs are implemented in high income countries to improve outcomes for families with young children. Significant resources are invested in such programs and high quality evaluations are important. In the context of research trials, implementation quality is often poorly reported and, when reported, is variable. This paper presents the quality of implementation of the right@home program, a sustained nurse home visiting intervention trialled in Australia, and delivered in a 'real world' context through usual child and family health services. right@home is structured around the core Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) program, which is a salutogenic, child focused prevention model.
methodAt each visit right@home practitioners completed a checklist detailing the client unique identifier, date of contact and activities undertaken. These checklists were collated to provide data on intervention dose, retention to program completion at child age 2 years, and visit content, which were compared with the program schedule. Quality of family-provider relationship was measured using the Session Rating Scale. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify clusters of activities and allow qualitative assessment of concordance between program aims and program delivery.
resultsOf 363 intervention families offered the program, 352 (97·0%) commenced the program and 304 (87·3%) completed the program to child age 2 years. 253 of 352 (71·9%) families who commenced the program received more than 75 percent of scheduled visits including at least one antenatal visit. Families rated the participant-practitioner relationship highly (mean 39.4/40). The factor analysis identified six antenatal and six postnatal components which were concordant with the program aims.
conclusionsThe right@home program was delivered with higher adherence to program dose, schedule and content, and retention than usually reported in other home visiting research. Program compliance may have resulted from program design (visit schedule, dose, content and delivery flexibility) that was consistent with family aims.
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.