ArticlePloS one2025
Effects of the Family Nurse Partnership on all eligible mothers: a data linkage cohort study in England.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn intensive programme of home visiting, the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP), is received by around one in four first-time adolescent mothers in selected areas in England. During home visits, nurses support mothers to make choices about healthy pregnancies, improving child development, and fulfilling their own aspirations and ambitions. Evidence is needed of the wider effects of the FNP, including for mothers not enrolled in the programme (who might experience unintended effects). We evaluated child and maternal outcomes for all eligible mothers giving birth before, during, and after the period in which FNP was active in local areas.
methodsWe created a linked cohort of 237,185 eligible mothers, aged 13-19, who gave birth between April 2010 and March 2019, and who had a first antenatal booking appointment (or a date of 28 completed weeks of gestation, if missing) when FNP was active in their area. We used administrative hospital data to identify unplanned maternal/child hospitalisations up to 2 years after birth for children born and mothers delivering before, during and after FNP was active. Generalised linear models were used to adjust for background regional time trends, maternal characteristics, and clustering of outcomes within residential areas.
resultsWe found no evidence of differences in unplanned hospital admissions for children born during the FNP period (36.9% versus 36.0%, relative risk [RR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.99-1.02), or after FNP was active (37.1%, RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.95-1.06), compared with those born before FNP was active. There was no evidence of differences in child admissions for maltreatment/injury-related diagnoses or for maternal admissions for adversity-related diagnoses.
conclusionChild and maternal outcomes were similar before, during and after FNP active periods, suggesting that the FNP did not have a wider impact on outcomes in all eligible mothers, including those not participating in the FNP.
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.