Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Last updated: 2019

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Child development and school readiness

Findings 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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
Binge drinking	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	%(adjusted) = 28.00	Adjusted mean % = 32.00	Difference = -0.03	HomeVEE calculated = -0.10	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Binge drinking	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	%(adjusted) = 36.00	Adjusted mean % = 32.00	Difference = 0.04	HomeVEE calculated = 0.11	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Ever been pregnant/made a girl pregnant	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	%(adjusted) = 32.40	Adjusted mean % = 30.90	Difference = 1.50	HomeVEE calculated = 0.04	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Ever been pregnant/made a girl pregnant	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	% (adjusted) = 32.40	Adjusted mean % = 31.60	Difference = 0.80	HomeVEE calculated = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Ever fathered a child/given birth	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	%(adjusted) = 18.10	Adjusted mean % = 20.70	Difference = -2.60	HomeVEE calculated = -0.10	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Ever fathered a child/given birth	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	%(adjusted) = 21.20	Adjusted mean % = 20.70	Difference = 0.50	HomeVEE calculated = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of birth control use	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	Adjusted mean = 4.90	Adjusted mean = 4.60	Mean difference = 0.30	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of birth control use	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	Adjusted mean = 4.70	Adjusted mean = 4.60	Mean difference = 0.10	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of condom use	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	Adjusted mean = 3.90	Adjusted mean = 3.30	Mean difference = 0.60	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of condom use	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	Adjusted mean = 3.70	Adjusted mean = 3.30	Mean difference = 0.40	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Graduated from high school	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	%(adjusted) = 70.60	Adjusted mean % = 74.50	Difference = -3.90	HomeVEE calculated = -0.12	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Graduated from high school	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	%(adjusted) = 81.60	Adjusted mean % = 74.50	Difference = 7.10	HomeVEE calculated = 0.25	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Illicit drug use	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	%(adjusted) = 49.00	Adjusted mean % = 52.00	Difference = -0.03	HomeVEE calculated = -0.08	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Illicit drug use	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	%(adjusted) = 53.00	Adjusted mean % = 52.00	Difference = 0.01	HomeVEE calculated = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Number of sex partners, past year	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	Adjusted mean = 1.68	Adjusted mean = 1.55	Mean difference = 0.13	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Number of sex partners, past year	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	Adjusted mean = 1.73	Adjusted mean = 1.55	Mean difference = 0.18	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
Binge drinking	Percentage of youth that had engaged in binge drinking (greater than 4 drinks in a row) during the previous six months	Adolescent report	Not applicable
Ever been pregnant/made a girl pregnant	Percentage of youth that had become or made a girl pregnant or become a parent	Adolescent report	Not applicable
Ever fathered a child/given birth	Percentage of youth that had fathered a child or given birth	Adolescent report	Not applicable
Frequency of birth control use	A scale indicating the frequency of birth control use ranging from 1 (never) to 7(always)	Adolescent report	Not applicable
Frequency of condom use	A scale indicating the frequency of condom use ranging from 1 (never) to 7(always)	Adolescent report	Not applicable
Graduated from high school	Percentage of youth that had graduated from high school	Adolescent report	Not applicable
Illicit drug use	Percentage of youth that had used illegal drugs in the past year.	Adolescent report	Not applicable
Number of sex partners, past year	Count of the study child’s number of sexual partners during the 12 month period prior to the interview.	Adolescent report	Not applicable

Eckenrode, J., Zielinski, D., Smith, E., Marcynyszyn, L. A., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., et al. (2001). Child maltreatment and the early onset of problem behaviors: Can a program of nurse home visitation break the link? Development and Psychopathology, 13(4), 873–890.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Number of early onset of problem behaviors	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	228 adolescents	Not available	Not available	OR = 0.28	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.12	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High. , footnote16 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 The discussion of outcomes in the text of this study implies that the direction of the effect is in the opposite direction than what is reported in the study and replicated here.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties	Operations links
Number of early onset problem behaviors	Reports of participation in 11 problematic health and social behaviors through the 15th year of life were aggregated to obtain a count of early onset problem behaviors. Age cutoffs for “early” were established for each behavior using comparison group frequency distributions and national data where available.	Adolescent report	Not reported by author

Enoch, M. A., Kitzman, H., Smith, J. A., Anson, E., Hodgkinson, C. A., Goldman, D., & Olds, D. L. (2016). A prospective cohort study of influences on externalizing behaviors across childhood: Results from a nurse home visiting randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(5), 376–382.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (12-year follow-up)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample	559 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Statistical significance is based on information the authors provided in the text.
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (2-year follow-up)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	2 years	Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample	587 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p = 0.03	Statistical significance and favorability are based on information the authors provided in the text.
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (6-year follow-up)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 years	Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample	575 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Statistical significance is based on information the authors provided in the text.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties	Operations links
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)	The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Disorders Composite is a standardized tool completed by parents, and is designed to assess the presence of behavioral or emotional problems in children.	Maternal report	The study authors note that the CBCL is standardized and normed.

Holmberg, John; Luckey, Dennis; Olds, David. (2011) Teacher data for the Denver Year-9 follow-up. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
Math Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	374 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.14	Unadjusted mean = 3.21	Mean difference = -0.07	Study reported = -0.11	p-value = 0.32
Reading Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	375 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.14	Unadjusted mean = 3.18	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = -0.05	p-value = 0.62

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties	Operations links
Math Grades: Parent Report	Mean third-grade math grade point average	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable
Reading Grades: Parent Report	Mean third-grade reading grade point average	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable

Kitzman, H. J., Olds, D. L., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Anson, E. A., Arcoleo, K. J., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., Henderson, C. R., & Holmberg, J. R. (2010). Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on children: Follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 412–418.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1–6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 2.48	Mean = 2.39	Mean difference = 0.09	HomeVEE calculated = 2.07	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4–6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 2.28	Mean = 2.20	Mean difference = 0.08	HomeVEE calculated = 1.70	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	568 children	Mean = 89.24	Mean = 87.96	Mean difference = 1.27	HomeVEE calculated = 2.25	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Conduct grades (grades 1–-6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 2.95	Mean = 2.89	Mean difference = 0.06	HomeVEE calculated = 1.79	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Conduct grades (grades 4–6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 2.95	Mean = 2.88	Mean difference = 0.07	HomeVEE calculated = 1.87	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	% (adjusted) = 14.80	Adjusted mean % = 9.80	OR = 1.61	HomeVEE calculated = 0.28	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Ever retained	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	% (adjusted) = 24.90	Adjusted mean % = 20.80	OR = 1.26	HomeVEE calculated = 0.14	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Externalizing disorders	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	594578548 594 mothers, 578 children, and 548 teachers	% (adjusted) = 19.70	Adjusted mean % = 17.80	OR = 1.13	HomeVEE calculated = 0.08	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1–6), percentile	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	578 children	Mean = 42.34	Mean = 39.79	Mean difference = 2.55	HomeVEE calculated = 2.12	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4–6), percentile	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 39.37	Mean = 38.27	Mean difference = 1.09	HomeVEE calculated = 0.89	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Incidence of days of substance use in the past 30 days	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	578 children	= 0.03	= 0.18	IR = 0.15	Not available	Statistically significant, p < .05
Internalizing disorders	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	578 children	%(adjusted) = 22.10	Adjusted mean % = 30.90	OR = 0.63	HomeVEE calculated = -0.28	Statistically significant, p < .05
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	578 children	Mean = 8.68	Mean = 8.75	Mean difference = -0.07	HomeVEE calculated = -0.42	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Number of substances used in the past 30 days	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	578 children	= 0.02	= 0.08	IR = 0.06	Not available	Statistically significant, p < .05
Total problems	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	594578548 594 mothers, 578 children, and 548 teachers	% (adjusted) = 23.70	Adjusted mean % = 19.80	OR = 1.26	HomeVEE calculated = 0.14	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Used cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana in the past 30 days	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	578 children	%(adjusted) = 1.70	Adjusted mean % = 5.10	OR = 0.31	HomeVEE calculated = -0.69	Statistically significant, p < .05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
GPA (reading and math)	Reading and math end-of-year grade point averages (GPAs) (score ranges from 0 to 4)	Review of school records	Not applicable
PIAT scores (reading and math)	Peabody IndividualAchievement Tests (PIATs) assess reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children	Child report	Not reported by author
Conduct grades	A scale of child conduct ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors)	Review of school records	Not applicable
Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6)	Percentage of children that had ever been placed in special education during grades 1 to 6	Review of school records	Not applicable
Ever retained	Percentage of children that had ever been grade retained during grades 1 to 6	Review of school records	Not applicable
Externalizing disorders	Externalizing behavioral problems such as aggression and rule breaking scored from parents’, teachers’, and children’s reports. Children were scored as positive whenever at least 2 of the 3 reporters gave a child a score in the borderline or clinical range	Parent/caregiver, teacher, and adolescent report	Not reported by author
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) percentile	Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Incidence of days of substance use in the past 30 days	Count of days of substance use (theoretical range, 0-90)	Interview	Not applicable
Internalizing disorders	Internalizing behavioral problems scored from parents’, teachers’, and children’s reports. Children were scored as positive whenever at least 2 of the 3 reporters gave a child a score in the borderline or clinical range	Parent/caregiver, teacher, and adolescent report	Not reported by author
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score	Leiter-R Sustained Attention test assesses skills in memory or attention in children	Direct assessment	Not reported by author
Number of substances used in the past 30 days	Count of substances used in the past 30 days (0-3)	Interview	Not applicable
Total problems	A measure of internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems scored from parent, teacher, and adolescent reports. Youth were scored as positive whenever at least 2 of the 3 reporters gave the adolescent a score in the borderline or clinical range.	Parent/caregiver, teacher, and adolescent report	Not reported by author
Used cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana in the past 30 days	Whether cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana in the past 30 days (yes or no)	Interview	Not applicable

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
CBCL (total score)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	2 years postnatal	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	1082 children	Adjusted mean = 46.00	Adjusted mean = 49.20	Mean difference = -3.20	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
BSID (total score)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	2 years postnatal	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	1082 children	Adjusted mean = 94.50	Adjusted mean = 94.30	Mean difference = 0.20	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties	Operations links
BSID	The BSID tests the mental, motor, and behavioral development and abilities of young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
CBCL	The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author

Olds, D. L., Henderson Jr., C. R., Chamberlin, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 78, 65–78.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
BSID MDI	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison	204 children	Adjusted mean = 111.23	Adjusted mean = 109.94	Mean difference = 1.29	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
BSID Mental Development Index (MDI)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison	199 children	Adjusted mean = 105.44	Adjusted mean = 109.94	Mean difference = -4.50	Not available	Statistical significance not reported
Cattell	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison	186 children	Adjusted mean = 105.73	Adjusted mean = 106.49	Mean difference = -0.76	Not available	Statistical significance not reported
Cattell	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison	193 children	Adjusted mean = 109.34	Adjusted mean = 106.49	Mean difference = 2.85	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Crying (mother-reported number of episodes last 2 weeks)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	164 children	Adjusted mean = 4.05	Adjusted mean = 3.93	Mean difference = 0.12	Not available	Statistical significance not reported
Crying (mother-reported number of episodes last 2 weeks)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 3.44	Adjusted mean = 3.93	Mean difference = -0.49	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Mother- reported positive mood	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	199 children	Adjusted mean = 2.34	Adjusted mean = 2.29	Mean difference = 0.05	Not available	Statistical significance not reported
Mother-reported positive mood	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	209 children	Adjusted mean = 2.40	Adjusted mean = 2.29	Mean difference = 0.11	Not available	Statistically significant, p < 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
BSID Mental Development Index	The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Cattell	The Cattell assesses mental ability in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Crying	Number of infant crying episodes in the last 2 weeks	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable
Mother-reported positive mood	A measure of the extent to which the child had a happy, positive, and content disposition	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., & Kitzman, H. (1994). Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring effects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics, 93(1), 89–98.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Number of child behavioral/parental coping problems in physician record (25 to 50 months)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	50 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	209 mothers	Adjusted mean = 0.43	Adjusted mean = 0.71	Mean difference = -0.28	Not available	Statistical significance not reported
Number of child behavioral/parental coping problems in physician record (25 to 50 months)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	50 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	221 mothers	Adjusted mean = 0.39	Adjusted mean = 0.71	Mean difference = -0.32	Not available	Statistically significant, p ≤ .01	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Stanford Binet	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	36 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	226 children	Adjusted mean = 104.20	Adjusted mean = 101.95	Mean difference = 2.25	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Stanford Binet	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	36 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	236 children	Adjusted mean = 103.57	Adjusted mean = 101.95	Mean difference = 1.62	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Stanford Binet	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	48 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	226 children	Adjusted mean = 111.25	Adjusted mean = 108.93	Mean difference = 2.32	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Stanford Binet	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	48 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	236 children	Adjusted mean = 111.52	Adjusted mean = 108.93	Mean difference = 2.59	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties	Operations links
Number of child behavioral/parental coping problems in physician record	Number of child behavioral and parental coping problems noted in the physician’s record	Review of medical records	Inter-rater agreement for the abstraction of diagnostic codes in the medical records was 90%.
Stanford Binet	The Stanford Binet Form L-M assesses intelligence in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., et al. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(14), 1238–1244.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Alcohol and drug impairment (mother report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15 year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 0.28	Adjusted mean = 0.18	Mean difference = -0.10	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.68
Alcohol and drug impairment (mother report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	277 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 0.20	Adjusted mean = 0.18	Mean difference = 0.02	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.96
Alcohol impairment (self-report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 0.47	Adjusted mean = 0.52	Mean difference = -0.05	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.35
Alcohol impairment (self-report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 0.50	Adjusted mean = 0.52	Mean difference = -0.02	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.95
Ever had sexual intercourse	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	% (adjusted) = 35.00	Adjusted mean % = 35.00	Mean difference = 0.00	HomeVEE calculated = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p = 1.00	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Ever pregnant or made someone pregnant	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	% (adjusted) = 4.00	Adjusted mean % = 3.00	Mean difference = 1.00	HomeVEE calculated = 0.18	Not statistically significant, p = 1.00	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Ever pregnant or made someone pregnant	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	% (adjusted) = 2.00	Adjusted mean % = 3.00	Mean difference = -1.00	HomeVEE calculated = -0.25	Not statistically significant, p = 0.97	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Incidence of sex partners (number)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 1.16	Adjusted mean = 1.56	Mean difference = -0.40	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.90	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence of sex partners (number)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 1.10	Adjusted mean = 1.56	Mean difference = -0.46	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.48	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence–cigarettes smoked per day	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 1.28	Adjusted mean = 1.30	Mean difference = -0.02	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.76	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence–cigarettes smoked per day	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 0.91	Adjusted mean = 1.30	Mean difference = -0.39	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.49	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence–days drank alcohol	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 1.81	Adjusted mean = 1.57	Mean difference = 0.24	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.97	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence–days drank alcohol	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 1.87	Adjusted mean = 1.57	Mean difference = -0.30	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.96	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence–days used drugs	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 3.55	Adjusted mean = 2.28	Mean difference = 1.27	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.49	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence–days used drugs	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 2.04	Adjusted mean = 2.28	Mean difference = -0.24	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.54	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence–times ran away (self report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 0.34	Adjusted mean = 0.29	Mean difference = 0.05	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.07	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence–times ran away (self-report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 0.23	Adjusted mean = 0.29	Mean difference = -0.06	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.83	footnote1 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Number of acting out problems (teacher report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 9.47	Adjusted mean = 9.61	Mean difference = -0.14	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.85
Number of acting out problems (teacher report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 8.97	Adjusted mean = 9.61	Mean difference = -0.64	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.41
Number of externalizing problems (self-report and mother report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 13.88	Adjusted mean = 13.73	Mean difference = 0.15	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.89
Number of externalizing problems (self-report and mother report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 13.65	Adjusted mean = 13.73	Mean difference = -0.08	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.95
Number of internalizing problems	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 11.66	Adjusted mean = 10.58	Mean difference = 1.08	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.19
Number of internalizing problems	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 11.19	Adjusted mean = 10.58	Mean difference = 0.61	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.46
Number of minor antisocial acts (self-report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 2.88	Adjusted mean = 2.99	Mean difference = -0.11	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.86
Number of minor antisocial acts (self-report)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 2.54	Adjusted mean = 2.99	Mean difference = -0.45	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.50

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
Alcohol and drug impairment	Responses to questions regarding children’s behavioral problems attributable to alcohol and drug use were summarized with a scale ranging from 0 to 10.	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author
Alcohol impairment	Responses to questions regarding the effect of alcohol on five domains, (trouble with parents, trouble at school, problems with friends, problems with someone they were dating, trouble with police) were summarized in an alcohol-use behavioral problem scale with a range of 0 to 5.	Adolescent report	Not reported by author
Ever had sexual intercourse	Percentage of youth reporting that they had experienced sexual intercourse	Youth report	Not applicable
Ever pregnant or made someone pregnant	Percentage of youth reporting that they had ever been pregnant or made a sexual partner pregnant	Youth report	Not applicable
Incidence of sex partners	Number of sexual partners the youth had during the youth’s lifetime	Youth report	Not applicable
Incidence—cigarettes smoked per day	A variable constructed to characterize the total number of cigarettes the youth currently smoked per day	Youth report	Not applicable
Incidence—days drank alcohol	A variable constructed to characterize the number of days the youth drank alcohol during the previous 6 months	Youth report	Not applicable
Incidence—days used drugs	A variable constructed to characterize the number of days the youth used illegal drugs during the previous 6 months	Youth report	Not applicable
Incidence—long-term school suspensions	Number of long-term school suspensions the youth had received	Review of school records	Not applicable
Incidence—short-term school suspensions	Number of short-term school suspensions the youth had received	Review of school records	Not applicable
Incidence–times ran away	Counts of the number of times the youth had run away from home up to their 15th year	Adolescent report	Not applicable
Number of acting out problems	A scale that rated youth’s disruptive behavior in the classroom	Current Mathematics and English teacher reports	Not reported by author
Number of externalizing problems	An average of parent and child reports of externalizing behavioral problems	Parent/caregiver and child report	Not reported by author
Number of externalizing problems	An externalizing problems scale representing delinquency and aggression behavioral problems was drawn from the Achenbach Youth Self Report of Problem Behaviors.	Adolescent report	Not reported by author
Number of internalizing problems	An average of parent and child reports of internalizing behavioral problems	Parent/caregiver and child report	Not reported by author
Number of minor antisocial acts	Reports of antisocial and delinquent acts were factor analyzed and produced two factors, one of which was classified as minor antisocial acts	Adolescent report	Cronbach’s α = .68

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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
CBCL (externalizing problems)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	% (adjusted) = 17.40	Adjusted mean % = 20.20	OR = 0.83	HomeVEE calculated = -0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.43
CBCL (internalizing problems)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	% (adjusted) = 12.60	Adjusted mean % = 14.70	OR = 0.84	HomeVEE calculated = -0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.50
CBCL (total problems)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	% (adjusted) = 2.00	Adjusted mean % = 5.00	OR = 0.32	HomeVEE calculated = -0.37	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
HTC Rating Scale (classroom social skills)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 24.93	Adjusted mean = 24.53	Mean difference = 0.40	Study reported = 0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.71
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 6.16	Adjusted mean = 6.86	Mean difference = -0.70	Study reported = -0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.72
KABC arithmetic achievement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 89.75	Adjusted mean = 88.61	Mean difference = 1.14	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.30
KABC mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 92.34	Adjusted mean = 90.24	Mean difference = 2.10	Study reported = 0.18	Statistically significant, p = 0.03
KABC reading achievement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 93.79	Adjusted mean = 93.56	Mean difference = 0.23	Study reported = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p = 0.84
MSSB (dysregulated aggression index)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 99.24	Adjusted mean = 100.26	Mean difference = -1.02	Study reported = -0.10	Not statistically significant, p = 0.26
MSSB (percentage incoherent stories)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 21.15	Adjusted mean = 25.22	Mean difference = -4.07	Study reported = -0.16	Not statistically significant, p = 0.07
MSSB (warmth/empathy index)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 100.86	Adjusted mean = 99.51	Mean difference = 1.35	Study reported = 0.14	Not statistically significant, p = 0.13
PPVT-III receptive vocabulary	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 84.32	Adjusted mean = 82.13	Mean difference = 2.19	Study reported = 0.17	Statistically significant, p = 0.04
Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	641 mothers	% (adjusted) = 82.00	Adjusted mean % = 75.00	OR = 1.53	HomeVEE calculated = 0.26	Statistically significant, p = 0.05	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
CBCL	The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author
HTC Rating Scale	Children’s classroom behavior was summarized into two scales derived from principal components analysis: (1) the degree to which children were engaged with school, and (2) their classroom socioemotional adjustment.	Teacher report	Cronbach’s α = 0.96
KABC	The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children	Child assessment	Not reported by author
MSSB	Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation.	Videotaped observation	Cronbach’s α = 0.67, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.83
PPVT-III	The PPVT-III assesses receptive vocabulary for Standard American English in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months	Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or an early intervention	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
GPA (reading and math, grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 2.69	Adjusted mean = 2.59	Mean difference = 0.10	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.20	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Achievement tests (reading and math, grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	570 children	Adjusted mean = 44.61	Adjusted mean = 41.63	Mean difference = 2.98	Study reported = 0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.17	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Any academic failures (grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	= 0.07	= 0.05	Mean difference = 2.00	HomeVEE calculated = 0.20	Not statistically significant, p = 0.37	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Conduct grades (grades 1–3 )	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 2.71	Adjusted mean = 2.68	Mean difference = 0.03	Study reported = 0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.67	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Count of conduct failures, (grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 0.06	Adjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.04	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.09	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Count of depressive and anxiety disorders	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 0.12	Adjusted mean = 0.19	Mean difference = -0.07	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.12	footnote4 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculation of incidence ratio.
Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 0.36	Adjusted mean = 0.31	Mean difference = -0.05	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.42	footnote4 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculation of incidence ratio.
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	= 0.02	= 0.02	Mean difference = 0.00	HomeVEE calculated = -0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.97	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Ever retained (grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	= 0.16	= 0.12	Mean difference = 4.00	HomeVEE calculated = 0.18	Not statistically significant, p = 0.25	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Teacher reported peer affiliation (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	558 children	Adjusted mean = 100.35	Adjusted mean = 99.92	Mean difference = 0.43	Study reported = 0.04	Not statistically significant, p = 0.64	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	558 children	Adjusted mean = 100.10	Adjusted mean = 100.08	Mean difference = 0.02	Study reported = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p = 0.98	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	558 children	Adjusted mean = 99.77	Adjusted mean = 100.08	Mean difference = -0.31	Study reported = -0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.74	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
GPA	Grades received in math and reading during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Achievement tests	Scores received on achievement tests (primarily the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test) during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Any academic failures (grades 1–3)	Percentage of children who had any academic failures during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Conduct grades	Ratings of the child’s conduct at school during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Count of conduct failures	Counts of conduct failures at the end of each school year during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Count of depressive and anxiety disorders	Counts of depressive and anxiety disorders reported in the past year (major depression, dysthymia, generalized anxiety, separation anxiety, and social phobia) with actual values ranging between 0 and 5	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author
Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment)	Counts of disruptive behavior disorders reported in the past year (either oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, and attention-deficit disorder of any type), with actual values ranging between 0 and 2	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3)	Percentage of children who had ever been placed in special education	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Ever retained (grades 1–3)	Percentage of children who had ever been retained during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior	Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation.	Teacher report	Cronbach’s α = 0.95
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior	Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation.	Teacher report	Cronbach’s α = 0.95
Teacher-reported peer affiliation	Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation.	Teacher report	Cronbach’s α = 0.80

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	406 children	% (adjusted) = 6.00	Adjusted mean % = 12.00	OR = 0.48	HomeVEE calculated = -0.45	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	406 children	Adjusted mean = 101.22	Adjusted mean = 99.49	Mean difference = 1.73	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties	Operations links
PLS-3 (language delay and language development)	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores < 85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous.	Child assessment	Not reported by author

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
PLS-3 (total language score)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 92.65	Adjusted mean = 92.01	Mean difference = 0.64	Study reported = 0.04	Not statistically significant, p = 0.65	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Behavioral adaptation in testing	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 99.63	Adjusted mean = 99.71	Mean difference = -0.08	Study reported = -0.01	Not statistically significant, p = 0.93	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	424 mothers	= 0.54	= 0.66	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.29	Statistically significant, p = 0.03	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Emotional regulation in testing	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 99.54	Adjusted mean = 99.61	Mean difference = -0.07	Study reported = -0.01	Not statistically significant, p = 0.95	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Executive function composite	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 100.64	Adjusted mean = 99.69	Mean difference = 0.95	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.34	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Externalizing behavior problems	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 12.16	Adjusted mean = 12.20	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = -0.01	Not statistically significant, p = 0.96	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
PLS-3 (total language score)	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Behavioral adaptation in testing	Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity).	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.96
Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care	Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable
Emotional regulation in testing	Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity).	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.92
Executive function composite	Assessments of a series of cognitive tasks focusing primarily on the children’s capacity for sustained attention and inhibitory control were coded and analyzed using principal components analysis to produce a single composite index labeled executive functions.	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.60
Externalizing behavior problems	Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author

Olds, D. L., Holmberg, J. R., Donelan-McCall, N., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., & Robinson, J. (2014). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses on children follow-up of a randomized trial at ages 6 and 9 years. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(2), 114-121.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	378 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.02	Unadjusted mean = 0.05	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = 0.34	Not statistically significant, p = 0.07	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	396 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.03	Study reported = 0.76	Not statistically significant, p = 0.42	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	396 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.01	Unadjusted mean = 0.03	Mean difference = -0.02	Study reported = 0.42	Not statistically significant, p = 0.28	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	396 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = 0.45	Not statistically significant, p = 0.08	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
Attention dysfunction	Percent of children with attention dysfunction, as measured by the Conners' Continuous Performance Test and scores greater than 60 on the Clinical Confidence Index.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure
Externalizing	Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form.	Teacher and parent report	Norm-referenced measure
Internalizing	Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for internalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form.	Teacher and parent report	Norm-referenced measure
Total behavioral problems	Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for total behavioral problems. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form.	Teacher and parent report	Norm-referenced measure

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1-6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 2.46	Mean = 2.27	Mean difference = 0.20	HomeVEE calculated = 3.32	Statistically significant, p < .05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4-6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 2.27	Mean = 2.08	Mean difference = 0.19	HomeVEE calculated = 2.83	Statistically significant, p < .05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 88.78	Mean = 85.70	Mean difference = 3.07	HomeVEE calculated = 3.91	Statistically significant, p < .05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Conduct grades (grades 1-6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 2.93	Mean = 2.86	Mean difference = 0.07	HomeVEE calculated = 1.61	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Conduct grades (grades 4-6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 2.91	Mean = 2.86	Mean difference = 0.05	HomeVEE calculated = 0.93	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	% = 15.00	% = 15.00	OR = 0.97	HomeVEE calculated = -0.02	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote122 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).
Ever retained	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	% = 23.00	% = 27.00	OR = 0.77	HomeVEE calculated = -0.16	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	footnote122 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).
Externalizing disorders	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	% (adjusted) = 24.00	Adjusted mean % = 22.00	OR = 1.12	HomeVEE calculated = 0.07	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1-6), percentile1	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 40.52	Mean = 34.85	Mean difference = 5.67	HomeVEE calculated = 3.39	Statistically significant, p < .05
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4-6), percentile1	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 36.86	Mean = 33.67	Mean difference = 3.19	HomeVEE calculated = 1.87	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Internalizing disorders	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	%(adjusted) = 32.00	Adjusted mean % = 36.00	OR = 0.81	HomeVEE calculated = -0.13	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 8.63	Mean = 8.72	Mean difference = -0.09	HomeVEE calculated = -0.39	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Total problems	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 years	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	% (adjusted = 30.00	Adjusted mean % = 27.00	OR = 1.17	HomeVEE calculated = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
GPA (reading and math)	Reading and math end-of-year grade point averages (GPAs) (score ranges from 0 to 4)	Review of school records	Not applicable
PIAT scores (reading and math)	Peabody IndividualAchievement Tests (PIATs) assess reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children	Child report	Not reported by author
Conduct grades	A scale of child conduct ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors)	Review of school records	Not applicable
Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6)	Percentage of children that had ever been placed in special education during grades 1 to 6	Review of school records	Not applicable
Ever retained	Percentage of children that had ever been grade retained during grades 1 to 6	Review of school records	Not applicable
Externalizing disorders	Externalizing behavioral problems such as aggression and rule breaking scored from parents’, teachers’, and children’s reports. Children were scored as positive whenever at least 2 of the 3 reporters gave a child a score in the borderline or clinical range	Parent/caregiver, teacher, and adolescent report	Not reported by author
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) percentile	Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Internalizing disorders	Internalizing behavioral problems scored from parents’, teachers’, and children’s reports. Children were scored as positive whenever at least 2 of the 3 reporters gave a child a score in the borderline or clinical range	Parent/caregiver, teacher, and adolescent report	Not reported by author
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score	Leiter-R Sustained Attention test assesses skills in memory or attention in children	Direct assessment	Not reported by author
Total problems	A measure of internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems scored from parent, teacher, and adolescent reports. Youth were scored as positive whenever at least 2 of the 3 reporters gave the adolescent a score in the borderline or clinical range.	Parent/caregiver, teacher, and adolescent report	Not reported by author

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
CBCL (externalizing problems)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	% (adjusted) = 22.00	Adjusted mean % = 24.00	OR = 0.87	HomeVEE calculated = -0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.63
CBCL (internalizing problems)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	% (adjusted) = 20.00	Adjusted mean % = 17.00	OR = 1.30	HomeVEE calculated = 0.16	Not statistically significant, p = 0.40
CBCL (total problems, percentage)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	%, (adjusted) = 3.70	Adjusted mean % = 6.60	Difference = -2.90	Study reported = -0.37	Not statistically significant, p = 0.31
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 4.74	Adjusted mean = 4.23	Mean difference = 0.51	Study reported = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p = 0.86
HTC Rating Scale(classroom social skills)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 24.54	Adjusted mean = 22.92	Mean difference = 1.62	Study reported = 0.14	Not statistically significant, p = 0.27
KABC arithmetic achievement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 88.61	Adjusted mean = 85.42	Mean difference = 3.19	Study reported = 0.25	Statistically significant, p = 0.04
KABC mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 90.49	Adjusted mean = 87.64	Mean difference = 2.85	Study reported = 0.25	Statistically significant, p = 0.03
KABC reading achievement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 92.07	Adjusted mean = 90.87	Mean difference = 1.20	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.44
MSSB (dysregulated aggression index)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 98.58	Adjusted mean = 101.10	Mean difference = -2.52	Study reported = -0.25	Statistically significant, p = 0.04
MSSB (percentage incoherent stories)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 20.90	Adjusted mean = 29.84	Mean difference = -8.94	Study reported = -0.34	Statistically significant, p < 0.01
MSSB (warmth/ empathy index)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 100.30	Adjusted mean = 98.98	Mean difference = 1.32	Study reported = 0.13	Not statistically significant, p = 0.27
PPVT-III receptive vocabulary	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 81.75	Adjusted mean = 79.08	Mean difference = 2.67	Study reported = 0.21	Not statistically significant, p = 0.07

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
CBCL	The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author
HTC Rating Scale	Children’s classroom behavior was summarized into two scales derived from principal components analysis: (1) the degree to which children were engaged with school, and (2) their classroom socioemotional adjustment.	Teacher report	Cronbach’s α = 0.96
KABC	The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children	Child assessment	Not reported by author
MSSB	Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation.	Videotaped observation	Cronbach’s α = 0.67, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.83
PPVT-III	The PPVT-III assesses receptive vocabulary for Standard American English in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
GPA (reading and math, grades 1 – 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 2.68	Adjusted mean = 2.44	Mean difference = 0.24	Study reported = 0.22	Statistically significant, p = 0.02
Achievement tests (reading and math, grades 1 – 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 44.89	Adjusted mean = 35.72	Mean difference = 9.17	Study reported = 0.33	Statistically significant, p < 0.01
Conduct grades (grades 1 – 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 2.68	Adjusted mean = 2.65	Mean difference = 0.03	Study reported = 0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.75
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 99.59	Adjusted mean = 98.70	Mean difference = 0.89	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.47
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 100.18	Adjusted mean = 100.17	Mean difference = 0.01	Study reported = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p = 0.99
Teacher-reported peer affiliation (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9 year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 99.56	Adjusted mean = 99.37	Mean difference = 0.19	Study reported = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p = 0.88

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
GPA	Grades received in math and reading during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Achievement tests	Scores received on achievement tests (primarily the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test) during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Conduct grades	Ratings of the child’s conduct at school during grades 1 to 3	Review of school records	Not reported by author
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior	Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation.	Teacher report	Cronbach’s α = 0.95
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior	Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation.	Teacher report	Cronbach’s α = 0.95
Teacher-reported peer affiliation	Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation.	Teacher report	Cronbach’s α = 0.80

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
CBCL	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	136 children	Adjusted mean = 48.13	Adjusted mean = 49.25	Mean difference = -1.12	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
BSID (mental development delay)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	136 children	= 0.10	= 0.19	OR = 0.48	HomeVEE calculated = -0.12	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
BSID (mental development index)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	136 children	Adjusted mean = 90.18	Adjusted mean = 86.20	Mean difference = 3.98	Not available	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	footnote26 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 The confidence interval includes 0, but according to the study, the result is statistically significant (α = 0.05).
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	142 children	= 0.07	= 0.18	OR = 0.32	HomeVEE calculated = -0.65	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	142 children	Adjusted mean = 101.52	Adjusted mean = 96.85	Mean difference = 4.67	Not available	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	138 children	= 0.13	= 0.32	OR = 0.33	HomeVEE calculated = -0.31	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	138 children	= 0.24	= 0.40	OR = 0.46	HomeVEE calculated = -0.45	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	138 children	= 0.12	= 0.21	OR = 0.51	HomeVEE calculated = -0.34	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
Irritable temperament	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	138 children	Adjusted mean = 2.88	Adjusted mean = 2.92	Mean difference = -0.04	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
CBCL	The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
BSID: Mental development delay and Mental Development Index	The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
PLS-3 (language delay and language development)	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores < 85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Irritable temperament	No description provided by author.	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli.	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
PLS-3 (Total language score)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 91.39	Adjusted mean = 86.73	Mean difference = 4.66	Study reported = 0.31	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Behavioral adaptation in testing	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 100.41	Adjusted mean = 96.66	Mean difference = 3.75	Study reported = 0.38	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Emotional regulation in testing	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 99.54	Adjusted mean = 98.42	Mean difference = 1.12	Study reported = 0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.51	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Executive function composite	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 100.16	Adjusted mean = 95.48	Mean difference = 4.68	Study reported = 0.47	Statistically significant, p = 0.00	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Externalizing behavior problems	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 13.16	Adjusted mean = 12.95	Mean difference = 0.21	Study reported = 0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.88	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
PLS-3 (total language score)	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Behavioral adaptation in testing	Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity).	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.96
Emotional regulation in testing	Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity).	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.92
Executive function composite	Assessments of a series of cognitive tasks focusing primarily on the children’s capacity for sustained attention and inhibitory control were coded and analyzed using principal components analysis to produce a single composite index labeled executive functions.	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.60
Externalizing behavior problems	Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author

Holmberg, John; Luckey, Dennis; Olds, David. (2011) Teacher data for the Denver Year-9 follow-up. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	328 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	OR = 1.78	HomeVEE calculated = 0.37	p-value = 0.37	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	320 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.14	Unadjusted mean = 0.14	OR = 1.40	HomeVEE calculated = 0.20	p-value = 0.33	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	317 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	OR = 0.95	HomeVEE calculated = -0.03	p-value = 0.9	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	317 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	OR = 0.97	HomeVEE calculated = -0.01	p-value = 0.94	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Current grade placement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	321 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 4.45	Unadjusted mean = 4.45	Mean difference = 0.12	Study reported = 0.16	p-value = 0.13
Learning support services: hrs/week	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	309 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.22	Unadjusted mean = 1.22	Mean difference = -0.42	Study reported = -0.09	p-value = 0.4	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Math Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	391 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.11	Unadjusted mean = 3.11	Mean difference = -0.10	Study reported = -0.15	p-value = 0.16
Math Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	305 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.51	Unadjusted mean = 2.51	Mean difference = -0.17	Study reported = -0.15	p-value = 0.15
Reading Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	391 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.12	Unadjusted mean = 3.12	Mean difference = -0.06	Study reported = -0.07	p-value = 0.47
Reading Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	307 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.32	Unadjusted mean = 2.32	Mean difference = -0.17	Study reported = -0.16	p-value = 0.14
Special Education school report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	308 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.16	Unadjusted mean = 0.16	OR = 1.01	HomeVEE calculated = 0.01	p-value = 0.98	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Times sent to Principal"s office	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	326 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.44	Unadjusted mean = 1.44	Mean difference = 0.14	Study reported = 0.15	p-value = 0.18	footnote163 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical	Antisocial ProcessScreening Device (ASPD) assessment detects antisocial processes in youth ages 6 through 13 years.	Teacher report	Not reported by author
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	Percentage of children rated as having externalizing problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)	Parent/caregiver report and teacher report	Not reported by authors
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	Percentage of children rated as having internalizing problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)	Parent/caregiver report and teacher report	Not reported by authors
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical	Percentage of children rated as having total behavioral problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)	Parent/caregiver report and teacher report	Not reported by authors
Current grade placement	Mean current grade placement	Not reported by authors	Not applicable
Learning support services: hrs/week	Mean hours per week in learning support services	Not reported by authors	Not applicable
Math Grades: Parent Report	Mean third-grade math grade point average	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable
Math Grades: School Report	Mean third-grade math grade point average	Teacher report	Not applicable
Reading Grades: Parent Report	Mean third-grade reading grade point average	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable
Reading Grades: School Report	Mean third-grade reading grade point average	Teacher report	Not applicable
Special Education school report	Not reported by authors	Not reported by authors	Not applicable
Times sent to Principal's office	Mean number of times sent to principal's office	Not reported by authors	Not applicable

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
CBCL	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	392 children	Adjusted mean = 45.49	Adjusted mean = 45.26	Mean difference = 0.23	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
BSID (mental development delay)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	392 children	% (adjusted) = 14.00	Adjusted mean % = 13.00	OR = 1.07	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
BSID (Mental Developmental Index)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	392 children	Adjusted mean = 89.45	Adjusted mean = 89.38	Mean difference = 0.07	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	420 children	% (adjusted) = 11.00	Adjusted mean % = 12.00	OR = 0.90	HomeVEE calculated = -0.06	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	420 children	Adjusted mean = 99.89	Adjusted mean = 99.49	Mean difference = 0.40	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Irritable temperament (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	377 children	Adjusted mean = 2.83	Adjusted mean = 2.84	Mean difference = -0.01	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	377 children	% (adjusted) = 26.00	Adjusted mean % = 28.00	OR = 0.89	HomeVEE calculated = -0.06	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	377 children	% (adjusted) = 31.00	Adjusted mean % = 34.00	OR = 0.88	HomeVEE calculated = -0.08	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	377 children	% (adjusted) = 18.00	Adjusted mean % = 25.00	OR = 0.67	HomeVEE calculated = -0.25	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
CBCL	The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
BSID: Mental development delay and Mental Development Index	The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
PLS-3 (language delay and language development)	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores < 85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Irritable temperament	No description provided by author.	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli.	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	394 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.03	Unadjusted mean = 0.05	Mean difference = -0.03	Study reported = 0.53	Not statistically significant, p = 0.22	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	411 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.09	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.01	Study reported = 0.87	Not statistically significant, p = 0.66	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	394 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.14	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = 0.04	Study reported = 1.34	Not statistically significant, p = 0.33	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	411 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.03	Mean difference = 0.01	Study reported = 1.35	Not statistically significant, p = 0.60	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	394 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Mean difference = 0.00	Study reported = 0.96	Not statistically significant, p = 0.90	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	411 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Mean difference = 0.00	Study reported = 1.04	Not statistically significant, p = 0.91	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Total behavioral problems - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	394 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.09	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = 0.00	Study reported = 0.97	Not statistically significant, p = 0.94	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
Attention dysfunction	Percent of children with attention dysfunction, as measured by the Conners' Continuous Performance Test and scores greater than 60 on the Clinical Confidence Index.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure
Externalizing	Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form.	Teacher and parent report	Norm-referenced measure
Internalizing	Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for internalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form.	Teacher and parent report	Norm-referenced measure
Total behavioral problems	Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for total behavioral problems. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form.	Teacher and parent report	Norm-referenced measure

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
CBCL	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 48.79	Adjusted mean = 49.25	Mean difference = -0.46	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
BSID (Mental development delay)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	= 0.19	= 0.19	OR = 0.97	HomeVEE calculated = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
BSID (Mental development index)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 88.54	Adjusted mean = 86.20	Mean difference = 2.33	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	406 children	% (adjusted) = 6.00	Adjusted mean % = 12.00	OR = 0.48	HomeVEE calculated = -0.45	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	= 0.13	= 0.18	OR = 0.66	HomeVEE calculated = -0.23	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	406 children	Adjusted mean = 101.22	Adjusted mean = 99.49	Mean difference = 1.73	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	21-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 97.83	Adjusted mean = 96.85	Mean difference = 0.98	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	158 children	= 0.22	= 0.32	OR = 0.63	HomeVEE calculated = -0.31	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	158 children	= 0.30	= 0.40	OR = 0.64	HomeVEE calculated = -0.27	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	158 children	= 0.17	= 0.21	OR = 0.77	HomeVEE calculated = -0.16	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
Irritable temperament	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	158 children	Adjusted mean = 2.95	Adjusted mean = 2.92	Mean difference = 0.02	Not available	HomVEE = > 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
CBCL	The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
BSID: Mental development delay and Mental Development Index	The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
PLS-3 (language delay and language development)	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores < 85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Irritable temperament	No description provided by author.	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli.	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
PLS-3 (Total language score)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 90.09	Adjusted mean = 86.73	Mean difference = 3.36	Study reported = 0.23	Not statistically significant, p = 0.13	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Behavioral adaptation in testing	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 99.51	Adjusted mean = 96.66	Mean difference = 2.85	Study reported = 0.28	Not statistically significant, p = 0.10	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Emotional regulation in testing	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 99.29	Adjusted mean = 98.42	Mean difference = 0.87	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.59	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Executive function composite	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 98.40	Adjusted mean = 95.48	Mean difference = 2.92	Study reported = 0.29	Not statistically significant, p = 0.06	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.
Externalizing behavior problems	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 12.91	Adjusted mean = 12.95	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p = 0.98	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
PLS-3 (total language score)	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Behavioral adaptation in testing	Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity).	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.96
Emotional regulation in testing	Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity).	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.92
Executive function composite	Assessments of a series of cognitive tasks focusing primarily on the children’s capacity for sustained attention and inhibitory control were coded and analyzed using principal components analysis to produce a single composite index labeled executive functions.	In-home observational assessment	Cronbach’s α = 0.60
Externalizing behavior problems	Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author

Findings rated moderate

Holmberg, John; Luckey, Dennis; Olds, David. (2011) Teacher data for the Denver Year-9 follow-up. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	310 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.01	Unadjusted mean = 0.02	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.26	p-value = 0.59	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	303 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.29	p-value = 0.26	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	302 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	OR = 0.41	HomeVEE calculated = -0.53	p-value = 0.1	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	302 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	OR = 0.74	HomeVEE calculated = -0.18	p-value = 0.47	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Current grade placement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	304 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 4.35	Unadjusted mean = 4.33	Mean difference = 0.02	Study reported = 0.06	p-value = 0.57
Learning support services: hrs/week	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.53	Unadjusted mean = 1.64	Mean difference = -0.11	Study reported = -0.02	p-value = 0.83	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Math Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	374 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.14	Unadjusted mean = 3.21	Mean difference = -0.07	Study reported = -0.11	p-value = 0.32
Math Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	295 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.54	Unadjusted mean = 2.68	Mean difference = -0.14	Study reported = -0.12	p-value = 0.24
Reading Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.47	Unadjusted mean = 2.49	Mean difference = -0.02	Study reported = -0.03	p-value = 0.8
Special Education school report	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.12	Unadjusted mean = 0.16	OR = 0.76	HomeVEE calculated = -0.17	p-value = 0.42	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Times sent to Principal's office	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	308 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.32	Unadjusted mean = 1.30	Mean difference = 0.02	Study reported = 0.02	p-value = 0.85	footnote163 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure

Outcome measure description

Collection method

Properties

Operations links

CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided

Teacher report

Not reported by author

CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided

Teacher report

Not reported by author

CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided

Teacher report

Not reported by author

ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical

No description provided

Teacher report

Current grade placement

No description provided

Not reported by author

Not applicable

Learning support services: hrs/week

No description provided

Not reported by author

Not applicable

Math Grades: Parent Report

No description provided

Parent report

Not applicable

Math Grades: School Report

Mean third-grade math grade point average

Teacher report

Not applicable

Reading Grades: Parent Report

No description provided

Parent report

Not applicable

Reading Grades: School Report

Mean third-grade reading grade point average

Teacher report

Not applicable

Special Education school report

No description provided

Teacher report

Not applicable

Times sent to Principal's office

No description provided

Teacher report

Not applicable

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
CBCL (Behavior problems score)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	372 children	Adjusted mean = 43.71	Adjusted mean = 45.26	Mean difference = -1.56	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
BSID MDI	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	372 children	Adjusted mean = 90.13	Adjusted mean = 89.38	Mean difference = 0.75	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05
BSID, MDI: Mental development delay	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	372 children	%, (adjusted) = 11.00	Adjusted mean % = 13.00	OR = 0.83	HomeVEE calculated = -0.12	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	363 children	%, (adjusted) = 19.00	Adjusted mean % = 28.00	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.31	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	363 children	%, (adjusted) = 26.00	Adjusted mean % = 34.00	OR = 0.68	HomeVEE calculated = -0.23	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	363 children	% (adjusted) = 16.00	Adjusted mean % = 25.00	OR = 0.57	HomeVEE calculated = -0.34	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Irritable temperament	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	363 children	Adjusted mean = 2.80	Adjusted mean = 2.84	Mean difference = -0.04	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05

Show outcome measure summary

Table help

Outcome measure	Outcome measure description	Collection method	Properties
CBCL	The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
BSID: Mental development delay BSID: MDI	The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous.	Child assessment	Not reported by author
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding)Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli.	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author
Irritable temperament	No description provided	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	378 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = 0.64	Not statistically significant, p = 0.25	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	9 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	378 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.08

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Child development and school readiness

Findings rated high

Findings rated moderate

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®