Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34993754›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2022

Evaluation of a Family Connects Dissemination to Four High-Poverty Rural Counties.

W Benjamin Goodman, Kenneth A Dodge, Yu Bai, Robert A Murphy, Karen O'Donnell

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Community Navigation: Iterative Development and Implementation of a Prenatal Psychosocial System of Care.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

W Benjamin GoodmanCenter for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. ben.goodman@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2417-1483
Kenneth A DodgeSanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5932-215X
Yu BaiCenter for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0515-8248
Robert A MurphyCenter for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4363-4831
Karen O'DonnellCenter for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2264-3889
Duke University · US

Funding

Community Prevention of Child MaltreatmentR01HD069981 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DODGE, KENNETH A · 2012 to 2022
$6.3M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD069981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHome visiting is a popular approach to improving the health and well-being of families with infants and young children in the United States; but, to date, no home visiting program has achieved population impact for families in rural communities. The current report includes evaluation results from the dissemination of a brief, universal postpartum home visiting program to four high-poverty rural counties.

methodsThe study utilized a quasi-experimental design. From Sept. 1, 2014-Dec. 31, 2015, families of all 994 resident births in four rural eastern North Carolina counties were assigned to receive Family Connects (FC; intervention group). A representative subsample of families participated in impact evaluation when the infants were 6 months old: 392 intervention group families and 126 families with infants born between Feb. 1, 2014-July 31, 2014 (natural comparison group). Data were analyzed preliminarily for reporting to funders in 2016 and, more comprehensively, using propensity score matching in 2020.

resultsOf FC-eligible families, 78% initiated participation; 83% of participating families completed the program (net completion = 65%). At age 6 months, intervention parents reported more community connections, more frequent use of community services, greater social support, and greater success with infants sleeping on their backs. Intervention infants had fewer total emergency department and urgent care visits. Intervention parents had more total emergency department and urgent care visits and (marginally) fewer overnights in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: FC can be implemented successfully in high-poverty rural communities with broad reach and positive benefits for infants and families.

Indexed as

House CallsRural PopulationChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantPostnatal CarePostpartum PeriodPovertyPregnancyProgram EvaluationUnited StatesHome visitingPopulation healthPreventionRural healthSystem of care

Identifiers

PMID34993754
PMCPMC9623422
OpenAlexW4206787038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.