Trial reportBMJ open2022
Nurse-led home-visitation programme for first-time mothers in reducing maltreatment and improving child health and development (BB:2-6): longer-term outcomes from a randomised cohort using data linkage.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 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
- The impact of a specialist home-visiting intervention on the language outcomes of young mothers and their children: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.BMC psychology · 2022Trial
- Core Components of Effective Home Visiting Programmes and Parenting Interventions Delivered by Nurses and Midwives-A Scoping Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Dyadic Care Interventions and Outcomes for Mothers and Their Infants: A Scoping Review.Pediatrics · 2025Article
- Effects of the Family Nurse Partnership on all eligible mothers: a data linkage cohort study in England.PloS one · 2025Article
- Potential for advances in data linkage and data science to support injury prevention research.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMeasure effectiveness of family nurse partnership (FNP) home-visiting programme in reducing maltreatment and improving maternal health and child health, developmental and educational outcomes; explore effect moderators, mediators; describe costs.
designFollow-up of BB:0-2 trial cohort (ISRCTN:23019866) up to age 7 years in England using record linkage.
participants1618 mothers aged 19 years or younger and their firstborn child(ren) recruited to BB:0-2 trial at less than 25 weeks gestation and not mandatorily withdrawn from trial or opted out. Intervention families were offered up to a maximum of 64 home visits by specially trained nurses from pregnancy until firstborn child was 2 years old, plus usually provided health and social care support. Comparator was usual care alone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: state-verified child-in-need status recorded at any time during follow-up. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: referral to social services, child protection registration (plan), child-in-need categorisation, looked-after status, recorded injuries and ingestions any time during follow-up, early childcare and educational attendance, school readiness and attainment at key stage 1 (KS1), healthcare costs.
resultsMatch rates for 1547 eligible children (1517 singletons, 15 sets of twins) were 98.3% (NHS Digital) and 97.4% (National Pupil Database). There was no difference between study arms in the proportion of children being registered as in need (adjusted OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31), or for any other measure of maltreatment. Children in the FNP arm were more likely to achieve a good level of development at reception age (school readiness) (adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.52). After adjusting for birth month, children in FNP arm were more likely to reach the expected standard in reading at KS1 (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.57). We found no trial arm differences for resource use and costs.
conclusionsFNP did not improve maltreatment or maternal outcomes. There was evidence of small advantages in school readiness and attainment at KS1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23019866.
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.