ArticleBMJ public health2024
Intensive home visiting for adolescent mothers in the Family Nurse Partnership in England 2010-2019: a population-based data linkage cohort study using propensity score matching.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Dyadic Care Interventions and Outcomes for Mothers and Their Infants: A Scoping Review.Pediatrics · 2025Article
- Characteristics and outcomes associated with fidelity in the Family-Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage cohort study.Archives of disease in childhood · 2025Article
- The safety net and child health and well-being: evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom.Fiscal studies · 2025Article
- How does health visiting in the first year of life vary by family characteristics? A longitudinal analysis of administrative data.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Effects of the Family Nurse Partnership on all eligible mothers: a data linkage cohort study in England.PloS one · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We evaluated the effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP), an intensive home visiting programme aiming to improve birth outcomes, child health and development, and to promote economic self-sufficiency among teenage mothers. Methods: We created a linked cohort of >130 000 mothers aged 13-19 years with live births between April 2010 and March 2019, using administrative data from health (Hospital Episode Statistics), education and children's social care (National Pupil Database). Using propensity score matching, we compared indicators of child maltreatment, health and development outcomes, and maternal hospital utilisation and educational outcomes up to 7 years following birth for mothers who did or did not enrol in FNP. Results: We found no evidence of an association between FNP and indicators of child maltreatment, except for an increased rate of unplanned admissions for maltreatment/injury-related diagnoses up to age 2 years for children born to FNP mothers (6.6% vs 5.7%, relative risk (RR) 1.15; 95% CI 1.07, 1.24). There was weak evidence that children born to FNP mothers were more likely to achieve a good level of development at age 5 years (57.5% vs 55.4%, RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00, 1.09). FNP mothers were less likely to have a subsequent delivery within 18 months of the index birth (8.4% vs 9.3%, RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88, 0.97). Conclusion: Our study supports findings from previous evaluations of FNP showing no evidence of benefit for child maltreatment or health outcomes measured in administrative data. Bias by indication, and variation in the intervention and usual care, may have limited our ability to detect effects. Future evaluations should capture more information on maternal risk factors and additional outcomes relating to maternal/child well-being.
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.