Skip Navigation

Nurse Family Partnership (NFP)®

Meets DHHS criteria for an evidenced based model

Last Updated: May 2016

In Brief for Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Outcomes

Impact Studies Rated High


Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Powers, J., & Olds, D. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 9-15.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Economically productive No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 231children 71% (adjusted) 68% (adjusted) Diff = 0.03 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.09 Secondary
Economically productive No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 219 children 73%(adjusted) 68%(adjusted) Diff = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.13 Secondary
Ever used AFDC Unfavorable Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 219 children 6%(adjusted) 2%(adjusted) Diff = 0.04 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 HomVEE = -0.68 Secondary
Ever used AFDC No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 231 children 3% (adjusted) 2% (adjusted) Diff = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.26 Secondary
Ever used food stamps No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 231 children 6%(adjusted) 6%(adjusted) Diff = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.02 Secondary
Ever used food stamps No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 219 children 7%(adjusted) 6%(adjusted) Diff = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.06 Secondary
Ever used Medicaid No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 219 children 20%(adjusted) 12%(adjusted) Diff = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.34 Secondary
Ever used Medicaid No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 231 children 11%(adjusted) 12%(adjusted) Diff = -0.01 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = -0.06 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Economically productive Percentage of youth engaging in economically productive activities such as whether the youth was in school, the military, or job training or working full time at the time of the interview Adolescent report Not applicable Secondary
Ever used AFDC Percentage of youth that had received AFDC Adolescent report Not applicable Secondary
Ever used food stamps Percentage of youth that had received food stamps Adolescent report Not applicable Secondary
Ever used Medicaid Percentage of youth that had received Medicaid Adolescent report Not applicable Secondary

Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Sidora, K., Henderson, C. R., Hanks, C., Cole, R., et al. (2000). Enduring effects of nurse home visitation on maternal life course: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(15), 1983–1989.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Current socioeconomic status (percentile ranked by U.S. occupational codes) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers Adjusted mean = 15.62 Adjusted mean = 13.73 MD = 1.89 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Highest education level No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers Adjusted mean = 11.61 Adjusted mean = 11.67 MD = -0.06 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Living with father of child (percentage) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers 19% (adjusted) 13% (adjusted) OR = 1.68 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
HomVEE = 0.29 Secondary
Living with partner (percentage) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers 43% (adjusted) 32% (adjusted) OR = 1.64 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
HomVEE = 0.27 Secondary
Married (percentage) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers 15% (adjusted) 10% (adjusted) OR = 1.56 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.09
HomVEE = 0.28 Secondary
Number of months current partner employed Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers Adjusted mean = 35.15 Adjusted mean = 26.45 MD = 8.70 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Not available Secondary
Number of months mother or child received AFDC (0–60 months postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers Adjusted mean = 32.55 Adjusted mean = 36.19 MD = -3.64 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.01
Not available Primary
Number of months mother or child received food stamps (0–60 months postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers Adjusted mean = 41.57 Adjusted mean = 45.04 MD = -3.47 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.01
Not available Primary
Number of months received Medicaid (0–54 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers Adjusted mean = 39.59 Adjusted mean = 41.08 MD = -1.49 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Number of months received WIC (0–54 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers Adjusted mean = 21.51 Adjusted mean = 23.33 MD = -1.82 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Number of months worked (0–54 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 3-year follow-up 646 mothers Adjusted mean = 19.89 Adjusted mean = 18.84 MD = 1.05 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Current SES Percentile rank of the mother’s occupation estimated by calculating percentile rank for each occupation using Census categories and the median income and educational achievement associated with each occupation Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Highest education level The highest year of school the mother had completed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Living with father of child Percentage of mothers who were living with the father of their child Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Living with partner Percentage of mothers who were living with their partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Married Percentage of mothers who were married Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months current partner employed Counts of the number of months the mother’s current partner was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months mother or child received AFDC Counts of the number of months the mother received AFDC Review of Tennessee Department of Human Services records Not applicable Primary
Number of months mother or child received food stamps Counts of the number of months the mother received food stamps. The outcome was measured for the period of 0 to 60 months postpartum. Review of Tennessee Department of Human Services records Not applicable Primary
Number of months received Medicaid Counts of the number of months the mother received Medicaid Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months received WIC Counts of the number of months the mother received WIC Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months worked Counts of the number of months the mother was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Tatelbaum, R., et al. (1997). Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(8), 644–652.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Employed during pregnancy No Effect Full (Memphis) 36th week of pregnancy 916 mothers 6% (adjusted) 3% (adjusted) OR = 2.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
HomVEE = 0.44 Secondary
In school during pregnancy No Effect Full (Memphis) 36th week of pregnancy 916 mothers 44% (adjusted) 41% (adjusted) OR = 1.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
2
HomVEE = 0.07 Secondary
Months on AFDC , 0–12 months postpartum No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 2 years postpartum 681 mothers Adjusted mean = 7.3 Adjusted mean = 7.6 MD = -0.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Months on AFDC , 13–24 months postpartum No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 2 years postpartum 671 mothers Adjusted mean = 7.8 Adjusted mean = 8.4 MD = -0.6 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
Not available Primary
Months worked, 0–12 months postpartum No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 2 years postpartum 681 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.2 Adjusted mean = 1.7 MD = 0.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months worked, 13–24 months postpartum No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 2 years postpartum 671 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.4 Adjusted mean = 3.4 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Secondary
Used other community services Favorable Full (Memphis) 36th week of pregnancy 916 mothers 29% (adjusted) 20% (adjusted) OR = 1.8 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.01
2
HomVEE = 0.30 Secondary

1 Authors report the difference in this outcome to be statistically significant, p < 0.10, which is greater than the acceptable alpha for this review (α = 0.05).

2 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Employed during pregnancy Percentage of women who were employed at 28 weeks gestation Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
In school during pregnancy Percentage of women who were enrolled in school at 28 weeks gestation Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on AFDC Counts of the number of months the mother received AFDC Review of Tennessee Department of Human Services records Not applicable Primary
Months worked Counts of the number of months the mother was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Used other community services Percentage of women who used other community services at 28 weeks’ gestation Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., et al. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(8), 637–643.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Months employed No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 245 mothers Adjusted mean = 96.40 Adjusted mean = 89.70 MD = 6.70 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months employed No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 227 mothers Adjusted mean = 87.50 Adjusted mean = 89.70 MD = -2.20 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Months receiving AFDC No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 227 mothers Adjusted mean = 70.20 Adjusted mean = 65.90 MD = 4.30 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Months receiving AFDC No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 245 mothers Adjusted mean = 52.8 Adjusted mean = 65.90 MD = -13.10 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months receiving food stamps No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 227 mothers Adjusted mean = 62.00 Adjusted mean = 56.40 MD = 5.60 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Months receiving food stamps No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy, and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 245 mothers Adjusted mean = 47.90 Adjusted mean = 56.40 MD = -8.50 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months receiving Medicaid No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 245 mothers Adjusted mean = 61.80 Adjusted mean = 70.00 MD = -8.20 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months receiving Medicaid No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 227 mothers Adjusted mean = 71.10 Adjusted mean = 70.00 MD = 1.10 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Months employed Counts of the number of months the mother was employed between the child’s birth and 15th year of life Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months receiving AFDC Counts of the number of months the mother received AFDC between the child’s birth and 15th year of life Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months receiving food stamps Counts of the number of months the mother received food stamps between the child’s birth and 15th year of life Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months receiving Medicaid Counts of the number of months the mother received Medicaid between the child’s birth and 15th year of life Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Olds, D. L., Henderson Jr., C. R., Tatelbaum, R., & Chamberlin, R. (1986). Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 77(1), 16.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Number of nutritional supplementation vouchers Favorable Full (Elmira) 32 weeks 288 mothers Mean = 2.18 Mean = 1.56 MD = 0.62 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type

Olds, D. L., Henderson, Jr., C. R., Tatelbaum, R., & Chamberlin, R. (1988). Improving the lifecourse development of socially disadvantaged parents: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1436–1445.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Concern about finding work No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 10 months postpartum 195 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.43 Adjusted mean = 2.17 MD = 0.26 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Concern about finding work No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 22 months postpartum 192 mothers Adjusted mean = 1.97 Adjusted mean = 1.92 MD = 0.05 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Concern about finding work No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 22 months postpartum 183 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.24 Adjusted mean = 1.92 MD = 0.32 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Concern about finding work No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 10 months postpartum 202 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.38 Adjusted mean = 2.17 MD = 0.21 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Help with child care No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 10 months postpartum 204 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.76 Adjusted mean = 2.64 MD = 0.12 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Help with child care No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 46 months postpartum 167 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.97 Adjusted mean = 3.00 MD = -0.03 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Help with child care No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 22 months postpartum 189 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.94 Adjusted mean = 2.76 MD = 0.18 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Help with child care No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 46 months postpartum 183 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.18 Adjusted mean = 3.00 MD = 0.18 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Help with child care No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 22 months postpartum 197 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.83 Adjusted mean = 2.76 MD = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Help with child care No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 10 months postpartum 197 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.77 Adjusted mean = 2.64 MD = 0.13 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Number of days on public assistance (0–22 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 22 months postpartum 194 mothers Adjusted mean = 236 Adjusted mean = 244 MD = -8 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Number of days on public assistance (0–22 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 22 months postpartum 185 mothers Adjusted mean = 268 Adjusted mean = 244 MD = 24 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Number of days on public assistance (0–48 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 48 months postpartum 208 mothers Adjusted mean = 437 Adjusted mean = 530 MD = -93 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Number of days on public assistance (0–48 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 48 months postpartum 196 mothers Adjusted mean = 510 Adjusted mean = 530 MD = -20 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Number of months employed (0–22 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 22 months postpartum 194 mothers Adjusted mean = 6.15 Adjusted mean = 5.89 MD = 0.26 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Number of months employed (0–22 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 22 months postpartum 185 mothers Adjusted mean = 7.57 Adjusted mean = 5.89 MD = 1.68 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Number of months employed (0–46 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 46 months postpartum 208 mothers Adjusted mean = 15.18 Adjusted mean = 12.65 MD = 2.53 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Number of months employed (0–46 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 46 months postpartum 196 mothers Adjusted mean = 17.01 Adjusted mean = 12.65 MD = 4.36 Statistical significance not reported Not available Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Concern about finding work Likert scale with a range of 1 to 4 indicating frequency of worrying about finding work Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Secondary
Help with child care Scale ranging from 1 to 4 based on average frequency of help with specific child care tasks (e.g., diaper changing, dressing, toilet training, feeding, playing) provided by other family members and friends Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Secondary
Number of days on public assistance Counts of the number of days the mother was on public assistance Review of county records for mothers that were at-risk or reported use of public assistance and had not moved out of the county during the period. Otherwise, parent/caregiver report was used. Not applicable Secondary
Number of months employed Counts of the number of months the mother was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H. J., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Arcoleo, K. J., Anson, E. A., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., Henderson, C. R., Bondy, J., & Stevenson, A. J. (2010). Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on maternal life course and government spending: Follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 419-424
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Duration of current partner relationship Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 6-, 9-, 12-year follow-ups 594mothers Adjusted mean = 59.58 Adjusted mean = 52.67 MD = 6.91 Statistically significant, p < .05 HomVEE = 3.55 Secondary
Duration of current partner relationship No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 594mothers Adjusted mean = 77.44 Adjusted mean = 70.80 MD = 6.64 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = 2.07 Secondary
Partnered with child's biological father No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 594mothers 10%(adjusted) 7%(adjusted) OR = 1.51 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = 0.24 Secondary
Time employed, in months No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 2 to 12 years 594mothers Adjusted mean = 4.5 Adjusted mean = 4.64 MD = -.14 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = -0.99 Secondary
Time employed, in months No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 10 to 12 years 594mothers Adjusted mean = 7.10 Adjusted mean = 7.77 MD = -.67 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = -2.62 Secondary
Use of AFDC-TANF Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis 0 to 12 years 594 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.97 Adjusted mean = 5.47 MD = -.50 Statistically significant, p < .05 HomVEE = -3.03 Primary
Use of AFDC-TANF No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 10 to 12 years 594 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.75 Adjusted mean = 3.97 MD = -.22 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = -13.10 Primary
Use of food stamps Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 0 to 12 years 594 mothers Adjusted mean = 6.27 Adjusted mean = 6.86 MD = -.59 Statistically significant, p < .05 HomVEE = -3.9 Primary
Use of food stamps No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 10 to 12 years 594 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.46 Adjusted mean = 5.06 MD = -.60 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = -2.65 Primary
Use of Medicaid No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 0 to 12 years 594 mothers Adjusted mean = 8.08 Adjusted mean = 8.39 MD = -.31 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = -1.88 Primary
Use of Medicaid No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 10 to 12 years 594 mothers Adjusted mean = 6.02 Adjusted mean = 6.23 MD = -.21 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = -0.81 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Duration of current partner relationship Count of the number of months the mother has been in a relationship with her current partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Partnered with child's biological father Percentage of mothers that were partnered with or married to the study child’s biologic father at the 12-year interview Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Time employed, in months Count of the number of months the mother was employed from child age 2 to 12 years Parent/caregiver report Not applicable  Secondary
Use of AFDC-TANF Count of the number of months per year the mother Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families from birth through child age 12 years Review of state records supplemented by parent/caregiver report Not applicable  Primary
Use of food stamps Count of the number of months per year the mother received food stamps from birth through child age 12 years Review of state records supplemented by parent/caregiver report Not applicable  Primary
Use of Medicaid Count of the number of months per year the mother received Medicaid from birth through age child age 12 years Review of state records supplemented by parent/caregiver report Not applicable  Primary

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., Robinson, J., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W., et al. (2004). Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: Age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1550–1559
Results with nurse home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Has current partner (percentage) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers 78% (adjusted) 77% (adjusted) OR = 1.10 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.64
1
0.06 Secondary
Highest grade current partner completed No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers Adjusted mean = 12.16
SE = 0.12
Adjusted mean = 12.05
SE = 0.08
MD = 0.11 Not statistically significant, p = 0.45 Study reported ES = 0.07 Secondary
Lives with father of child (not married) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers 2% (Adjusted) 2% (Adjusted) MD = 0 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.09, Significance test performed jointly
0.27 Secondary
Lives with father of study child (percentage) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers 12% (adjusted) 10% (adjusted) OR = 1.23 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.45
1
0.12 Secondary
Married (percentage) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers 12% (adjusted) 15% (adjusted) OR = 1.36 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.18
1
-0.16 Secondary
Married to father of child No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers 7% (Adjusted) 5% (Adjusted) MD = 2 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.09, Significance test performed jointly
-0.02 Secondary
Months mother employed (54–72 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers Adjusted mean = 9.96
SE = 0.47
Adjusted mean = 9.99
SE = 0.31
MD = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.97 Study reported ES = -0.00 Secondary
Months of AFDC (54–72 months postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers Adjusted mean = 7.21
SE = 0.54
Adjusted mean = 8.96
SE = 0.36
MD = -1.75 Statistically significant, p = 0.01 Study reported ES = -0.22 Secondary
Months of food stamps (54–72 months postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers Adjusted mean = 9.67
SE = 0.53
Adjusted mean = 11.50
SE = 0.35
MD = -1.83 Statistically significant, p < 0.01 Study reported ES = -0.24 Secondary
Months of Medicaid, (54–72 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers Adjusted mean = 11.98
SE = 0.52
Adjusted mean = 13.08
SE = 0.34
MD = -1.10 Not statistically significant, p = 0.08 Study reported ES = -0.15 Secondary
Months with current partner Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers Adjusted mean = 54.36
SE = 3.23
Adjusted mean = 45.00
SE = 2.17
MD = 9.36 Statistically significant, p = 0.02 Study reported ES = 0.24 Secondary
Mother graduated from high school/earned GED (percentage) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers 69% (adjusted) 66% (adjusted) OR = 1.12 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.54
1
0.07 Secondary
Partnered with father of child (not married or cohabiting) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers 4% (Adjusted) 3% (Adjusted) MD = 1 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.09, Significance test performed jointly
0.25 Secondary
SES of current job (mother) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers Adjusted mean = 14.01
SE = 1.35
Adjusted mean = 13.06
SE = 0.90
MD = 0.95 Not statistically significant, p = 0.56 Study reported ES = 0.05 Secondary
SES of partner’s current job No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers Adjusted mean = 30.83
SE = 1.71
Adjusted mean = 31.63
SE = 1.15
MD = -0.80 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.70
Study reported ES = -0.04 Secondary

1 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Has current partner Percentage of mothers who were currently in a relationship with a partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Highest grade current partner completed The highest year of school the mother’s current partner had completed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Lives with father of study child Percentage of mothers who lived with the father of the study’s focal child Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Married Percentage of mothers who were married Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months mother employed Counts of the number of months the mother was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on AFDC Counts of the number of months the mother received AFDC Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on food stamps Counts of the number of months the mother received food stamps Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on Medicaid Counts of the number of months the mother received Medicaid Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months with current partner Counts of the number of months the mother had been in a relationship with her current partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Mother graduated from high school/earned GED Percentage of mothers who had earned a high school diploma or GED Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
SES of current job Percentile rank of the mother’s occupation estimated by calculating percentile rank for each occupation using Census categories and the median income and educational achievement associated with each occupation Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
SES of partner’s current job Percentile rank of the mother’s current partner’s occupation estimated by calculating percentile rank for each occupation using Census categories and the median income and educational achievement associated with each occupation Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., et al. (2007). Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), e832–e845.
Results with nurse home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type

Married to father of child

Lives with father of child (not married)

Partnered with father of child (not married or cohabiting)

No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers

Married to father of child = 7% (adjusted)

Lives with father of child (not married) = 2% (adjusted)

Partnered with father of child (not married or cohabiting) = 4% (adjusted)

Married to father of child = 5% (adjusted)

Lives with father of child (not married) = 2% (adjusted)

Partnered with father of child (not married or cohabiting) = 3% (adjusted)

Married to father of child MD = 2

Lives with father of child (not married) MD = 0

Partnered with father of child (not married or cohabiting) MD = 1

Not statistically significant,
p = 0.09 Significance test performed jointly

Married to father of child HomVEE effect size = -0.02

Lives with father of child (not married) HomVEE effect size = 0.27

Partnered with father of child (not married or cohabiting) HomVEE effect size = 0.25

Secondary
Number of months employed per year (2–9 years postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.84
SE = 0.19
Adjusted mean = 3.86
SE = 0.12
MD = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.93
Study reported = -0.01 Secondary
Number of months employed per year (6–9 years postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 6.86
SE = 0.30
Adjusted mean = 7.39
SE = 0.19
MD = -0.53 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.13
Study reported = -0.15 Secondary
Number of months on /TANFper year (0–9 years postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 5.21
SE = 0.22
Adjusted mean = 5.92
SE = 0.15
MD = -0.71 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study reported = -0.14 Secondary
Number of months on food stamps per year (0–9 years postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 6.98
SE = 0.21
Adjusted mean = 7.80
SE = 0.14
MD = -0.82 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study reported = -0.17 Secondary
Number of months on food stamps per year (6–9 years postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.89
SE = 0.36
Adjusted mean = 5.92
SE = 0.24
MD = -1.03 Statistically significant,
p = 0.02
Study reported = -0.21 Secondary
Number of months on Medicaid per year (0–9 years postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 9.71
SE = 0.19
Adjusted mean = 10.07
SE = 0.13
MD = -0.36 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.12
Study reported = -0.09 Secondary
Number of months on Medicaid per year (6–9 years postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 8.79
SE = 0.34
Adjusted mean = 8.74
SE = 0.23
MD = 0.05 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.89
Study reported = 0.01 Secondary
Number of months on TANF(6–9 years postpartum) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.39
SE = 0.33
Adjusted mean = 4.01
SE = 0.22
MD = -0.62 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.12
Study reported = -0.12 Secondary
Number of months with current partner (at 6 and 9 years postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 51.89
SE = 2.25
Adjusted mean = 44.48
SE = 1.48
MD = 7.41 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study reported = 0.23 Secondary
Number of months with current partner (at 9 year postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 61.59
SE = 3.18
Adjusted mean = 52.40
SE = 2.09
MD = 9.19 Statistically significant,
p = 0.02
Study reported = 0.28 Secondary
Number of months with employed partner (at 6 and 9 years postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 46.04
SE = 2.05
Adjusted mean = 38.43
SE = 1.36
MD = 7.61 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study reported = 0.25 Secondary
Number of months with employed partner (at 9 years postpartum) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 627 mothers Adjusted mean = 54.95
SE = 2.95
Adjusted mean = 46.01
SE = 1.94
MD = 8.94 Statistically significant,
p = 0.01
Study reported = 0.30 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Lives with father of child Percentage of unmarried mothers who lived with the father of the study’s focal child Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Married to father of child Percentage of mothers who were married to the father of the study’s focal child Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months employed per year Counts of the number of months the mother was employed per year Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months on AFDC/TANF per year Counts of the number of months per year the mother received AFDC or TANF Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months on food stamps per year Counts of the number of months per year the mother received food stamps Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months on Medicaid per year Counts of the number of months per year the mother received Medicaid Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months with current partner Counts of the number of months the mother had been in a relationship with her current partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months with employed partner Counts of the number of months the mother had been in a relationship with an employed partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Number of months with employed partner Counts of the number of months the mother had been in a relationship with an employed partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Partnered with father of child Percentage of mothers who were in a relationship with the father of the study’s focal child but were not married or cohabitating with them Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., O’Brien, R., Luckey, D. W., Pettitt, L. M., Henderson, C. R., et al. (2002). Home visiting by paraprofessionals and by nurses: A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 110(3), 486.
Results with nurse home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Educational achievement (years) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 21 months 427 mothers Adjusted mean = 11.51 Adjusted mean = 11.51 MD = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Educational achievement The highest year of school the mother had completed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Results with paraprofessional home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Educational achievement (years) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 21 months 440 mothers Adjusted mean = 11.62 Adjusted mean = 11.51 MD = 0.11 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months employed (1–12 months postpartum) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 12 months 425 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.21 Adjusted mean = 3.97 MD = 0.24 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months employed (13–24 months postpartum) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 24 months 439 mothers Adjusted mean = 6.14 Adjusted mean = 5.73 MD = 0.41 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months on AFDC (1–12 months postpartum) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 12 months 425 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.60 Adjusted mean = 2.35 MD = 0.25 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months on AFDC (13–24 months postpartum) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 24 months 439 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.31 Adjusted mean = 1.92 MD = 0.39 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Educational achievement The highest year of school the mother had completed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months employed Counts of the number of months the mother was employed. The outcome was measured for the periods of 1 to 12 months postpartum and 13 to 24 months postpartum. Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on AFDC Counts of the number of months the mother received AFDC. The outcome was measured for the periods of 1 to 12 months postpartum and 13 to 24 months postpartum. Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., Pettitt, L., Luckey, D. W., Holmberg, J., Ng, R. K., et al. (2004). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: Age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1560-1568.
Results with nurse home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Graduated from high school or earned GED No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers 0.8 0.76 OR = 1.26 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.35
HomVEE = 0.14 Secondary
Lives with father of child No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers 0.41 0.43 OR = 0.92 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.69
HomVEE = -0.05 Secondary
Lives with partner No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers 0.58 0.61 OR = 0.90 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.61
HomVEE = -0.06 Secondary
Married No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers 0.39 0.44 OR = 0.80 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.28
HomVEE = -0.14 Secondary
Months mother employed (25–48 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers Adjusted mean = 14.42
SE = 0.61
Adjusted mean = 13.38
SE = 0.59
MD = 1.04 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.22
Study reported = 0.04 Secondary
Months of AFDC (25–48 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers Adjusted mean = 1.88
SE = 0.40
Adjusted mean = 2.10
SE = 0.39
MD = -0.22 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.69
Study reported = 0.01 Secondary
Months of food stamps (25–48 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.32
SE = 0.57
Adjusted mean = 3.98
SE = 0.56
MD = 0.34 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.67
Study reported = 0.07 Secondary
Months of Medicaid (25–48 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers Adjusted mean = 7.34
SE = 0.70
Adjusted mean = 6.98
SE = 0.68
MD = 0.36 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.71
Study reported = -0.03 Secondary
Months with current partner No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers Adjusted mean = 19.92
SE = 0.68
Adjusted mean = 20.14
SE = 0.65
MD = -0.22 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.81
Study reported = .04 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Graduated from high school or earned GED Percentage of mothers who had earned a high school diploma or GED Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Lives with father of child Percentage of mothers who lived with the father of the study’s focal child Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Lives with partner Percentage of mothers who lived with their current partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Married Percentage of mothers who were married Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months mother employed (25–48 months postpartum) Counts of the number of months the mother was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on AFDC (25–48 months postpartum) Counts of the number of months the mother received AFDC Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on food stamps (25–48 months postpartum) Counts of the number of months the mother received food stamps Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on Medicaid (25–48 months postpartum) Counts of the number of months the mother received Medicaid Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months with current partner Counts of the number of months the mother had been in a relationship with her current partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Top

Impact Studies Rated Moderate


Hanks, Carole, Luckey, Dennis, Knudtson, Michael, Kitzman, Harriet, Anson, Elizabeth, Arcoleo, Kimberly, & Olds, David. (2011) Neighborhood context and the Nurse-Family Partnership. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Results with nurse home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Memphis, TN - Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 6 years 627 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.86 Unadjusted mean = 2.04 MD = -0.181 p = 0.38 Study-reported = -0.11 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Memphis, TN - Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 9 years 617 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.93 Unadjusted mean = 1.93 MD = 02 p = 0.99 Study-reported = 0 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Memphis, TN - Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 12 years 569 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.54 Unadjusted mean = 1.6 MD = -0.061 p = 0.78 Study-reported = -0.04 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Denver, CO- Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 4 years 414 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.1 Unadjusted mean = 0.06 MD = 0.042 p = 0.72 Study-reported = 0.04 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Denver, CO- Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 6 years 394 mothers Unadjusted mean = -0.01 Unadjusted mean = -0.08 MD = 0.072 p = 0.34 Study-reported = 0.12 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Denver, CO- Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 9 years 357 mothers Unadjusted mean = -0.15 Unadjusted mean = -0.17 MD = 0.022 p = 0.84 Study-reported = 0.03 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Elmira, NY- Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 24 months 205 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.32 Unadjusted mean = 0.45 MD = -0.131 p = 0.54 Study-reported = -0.12 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Elmira, NY- Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 4 years 214 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.36 Unadjusted mean = 0.44 MD = -0.081 p = 0.72 Study-reported = -0.07 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index Unfavorable Elmira, NY- Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 15 years 183 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.48 Unadjusted mean = 0.06 MD = 0.422 p = 0.03 Study-reported = 0.42 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Memphis, TN - Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 24 months 657 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.3 Unadjusted mean = 2.21 MD = 0.092 p = 0.7 Study-reported = 0.05 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Memphis, TN - Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) 54 months 626 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.4 Unadjusted mean = 2.28 MD = 0.122 p = 0.63 Study-reported = 0.06 Primary

1 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

2 Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Neighborhood Disadvantage index Weighted average of the standardized values for the following percentages within Census tract and block group: (1) households below the federal poverty level (2) persons on public assistance (3) female-headed households with children (4) persons unemployed, and (5) share of population that is black. U.S. Census Bureau - 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses Not reported by authors Primary
Results for mothers with low psychological resources subgroup and nurse home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Denver, CONurseFamily Partnership (NFP) - low psychological resources 4 years 152 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.18 Unadjusted mean = 0.4 MD = -0.222 p = 0.16 Study-reported = -0.23 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Elmira, NYNurseFamily Partnership (NFP) - high risk (unmarried, low SES) 4 years 100 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.83 Unadjusted mean = 0.91 MD = -0.082 p = 0.79 Study-reported = -0.06 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Elmira, NYNurseFamily Partnership (NFP) - high risk (unmarried, low SES) 15 years 78 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.57 Unadjusted mean = 0.52 MD = 0.051 p = 0.86 Study-reported = 0.04 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Memphis, TN Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - low psychological resources 24 months 338 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.48 Unadjusted mean = 2.51 MD = -0.032 p = 0.88 Study-reported = -0.02 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Memphis, TN Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - low psychological resources 54 months 325 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.52 Unadjusted mean = 2.71 MD = -0.192 p = 0.35 Study-reported = -0.11 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index Unfavorable Memphis, TN Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - low psychological resources 6 years 332 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.84 Unadjusted mean = 2.34 MD = 0.51 p = 0.01 Study-reported = 0.3 Primary
Neighborhood Disadvantage index No Effect Memphis, TN Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - low psychological resources 12 years 308 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.03 Unadjusted mean = 1.74 MD = 0.291 p = 0.11 Study-reported = 0.19 Primary

1 Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

2 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Neighborhood Disadvantage index An average of the standardized values for five elements in each Census tract and block group number: (1) percentage of households below the federal poverty level, (2) percentage of persons on public assistance, (3) percentage of female-headed households with children, (4) percentage of persons unemployed, (5) percentage of population that is black. This average was weighted by intervals between the Censuses when participant assessments were conducted. The weighted scores represent the degree of concentrated disadvantage in the neighborhood in terms of national averages, weighted by intervals to the Census. Author calculation from public data Not reported by author Primary

Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., O’Brien, R., Luckey, D. W., Pettitt, L. M., Henderson, C. R., et al. (2002). Home visiting by paraprofessionals and by nurses: A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 110(3), 486.
Results with nurse home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Months employed (1–12 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 12 months 406 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.35 Adjusted mean = 3.97 MD = 0.38 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months employed (13–24 months postpartum) Favorable Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 24 months 419 mothers Adjusted mean = 6.87 Adjusted mean = 5.73 MD = 1.14 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months on AFDC (1–12 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 12 months 406 mothers Adjusted mean = 2.31 Adjusted mean = 2.35 MD = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Months on AFDC (13–24 months postpartum) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 24 months 419 mothers Adjusted mean = 1.95 Adjusted mean = 1.92 MD = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p ≥ 0.05
Not available Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Months employed Counts of the number of months the mother was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on AFDC Counts of the number of months the mother received AFDC Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., Pettitt, L., Luckey, D. W., Holmberg, J., Ng, R. K., et al. (2004). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: Age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1560-1568.
Results with paraprofessional home visitors.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Graduated from high school or earned GED No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers 0.82 0.76 OR = 1.39 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.18
HomVEE = 0.20 Secondary
Lives with father of child Favorable Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers 0.33 0.43 OR = 0.64 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
HomVEE = -0.27 Secondary
Lives with partner No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers 0.52 0.61 OR = 0.70 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.08
HomVEE = -0.21 Secondary
Married Unfavorable Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers 0.32 0.44 OR = 0.61 Statistically significant,
p = 0.02
HomVEE = -0.31 Secondary
Months mother employed (25–48 months postpartum) Favorable Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers Adjusted mean = 15.13
SE = 0.61
Adjusted mean = 13.38
SE = 0.59
MD = 1.75 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Study reported = 0.11 Secondary
Months of AFDC (25–48 months postpartum) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers Adjusted mean = 1.95
SE = 0.40
Adjusted mean = 2.10
SE = 0.39
MD = -0.15 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.78
Study reported = -0.19 Secondary
Months of food stamps (25–48 months postpartum) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.56
SE = 0.57
Adjusted mean = 3.98
SE = 0.56
MD = 0.58 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.47
Study reported = 0.21 Secondary
Months of Medicaid (25–48 months postpartum) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers Adjusted mean = 8.08
SE = 0.70
Adjusted mean = 6.98
SE = 0.68
MD = 1.10 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.26
Study reported = 0.02 Secondary
Months with current partner No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 431 mothers Adjusted mean = 20.03
SE = 0.71
Adjusted mean = 20.14
SE = 0.65
MD = -0.11 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.91
Study reported = 0.07 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Graduated from high school or earned GED Percentage of mothers who had earned a high school diploma or GED Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Lives with father of child Percentage of mothers who lived with the father of the study’s focal child Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Lives with partner Percentage of mothers who lived with their current partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Married Percentage of mothers who were married Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months mother employed (25–48 months postpartum) Counts of the number of months the mother was employed. The outcome was measured for the period of 25 to 48 months postpartum Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on AFDC (25–48 months postpartum) Counts of the number of months the mother received AFDC. The outcome was measured for the period of 25 to 48 months postpartum Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on food stamps (25–48 months postpartum) Counts of the number of months the mother received food stamps. The outcome was measured for the period of 25 to 48 months postpartum Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months on Medicaid (25–48 months postpartum) Counts of the number of months the mother received Medicaid. The outcome was measured for the period of 25 to 48 months postpartum Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Months with current partner Counts of the number of months the mother had been in a relationship with her current partner Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Top