ArticlePloS one2022
Expert-generated standard practice elements for evidence-based home visiting programs using a Delphi process.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStates, territories, non-profits, and tribes are eligible to obtain federal funding to implement federally endorsed evidence-based home visiting programs. This represents a massive success in translational science, with $400 million a year allocated to these implementation efforts. This legislation also requires that 3% of this annual funding be allocated to tribal entities implementing home visiting in their communities. However, implementing stakeholders face challenges with selecting which program is best for their desired outcomes and context. Moreover, recent reviews have indicated that when implemented in practice and delivered at scale, many evidence-based home visiting programs fail to replicate the retention rates and effects achieved during clinical trials. To inform program implementers and better identify the active ingredients in home visiting programs that drive significant impacts, we aimed to develop an expert derived consensus taxonomy on the elements used in home visiting practice that are essential to priority outcome domains.
methodsWe convened a panel of 16 experts representing researchers, model representatives, and program implementers using a Delphi approach. We first elicited standard practice elements (SPEs) using open-ended inquiry, then compared these elements to behavior change techniques (BCTs) given their general importance in the field of home visiting; and finally rated their importance to 10 outcome domains.
resultsOur process identified 48 SPEs derived from the panel, with 83 additional BCTs added based on the literature. Six SPEs, mostly related to home visitor characteristics and skills, were rated essential across all outcome domains. Fifty-three of the 83 BCTs were rated unnecessary across all outcome domains.
conclusionsThis work represents the first step in a consensus-grounded taxonomy of techniques and strategies necessary for home visiting programs and provides a framework for future hypothesis testing and replication studies.
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.