Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)® Meets HHS Criteria

Last updated: 2019

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Child development and school readiness

Findings rated high

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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 + 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 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 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 + 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
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
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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 + 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
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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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 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 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–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–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–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 + 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–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–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 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 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 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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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 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 externalizing problems

An average of parent and child reports of externalizing behavioral problems Parent/caregiver and child 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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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 (&alpha; = 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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors
Show findings details
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
Show findings details
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
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
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
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

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
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