Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)® Meets HHS Criteria

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2024

Effects shown in research

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 Notes

Binge drinking

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

19-year follow up

Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

117 children Adjusted proportion = 0.21 Adjusted proportion = 0.24 Mean difference = -0.03 HomVEE calculated = -0.12

Not statistically significant, p = 0.67

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

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 Study reported = -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 Study reported = 0.11 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Ever been pregnant

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

19-year follow up

Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

116 children Adjusted proportion = 0.41 Adjusted proportion = 0.42 Mean difference = -0.01 HomVEE calculated = -0.02

Not statistically significant, p = 0.93

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

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 Study reported = 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 Study reported = 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 + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 231 children %(adjusted) = 21.20 Adjusted mean % = 20.70 Difference = 0.50 Study reported = 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 Study reported = -0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Ever given birth

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

19-year follow up

Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

116 children Adjusted proportion = 0.27 Adjusted proportion = 0.29 Mean difference = -0.02 HomVEE calculated = -0.05

Not statistically significant, p = 0.86

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

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 + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

117 children Adjusted proportion = 0.81 Adjusted proportion = 0.73 Mean difference = 0.09 HomVEE calculated = 0.30

Not statistically significant, p = 0.29

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

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 Study reported = 0.25 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 Study reported = -0.12 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Illicit drug use

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

19-year follow up

Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

117 children Adjusted proportion = 0.48 Adjusted proportion = 0.52 Mean difference = -0.04 HomVEE calculated = -0.11

Not statistically significant, p = 0.65

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

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 Study reported = 0.02 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 Study reported = -0.08 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); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

115 children Adjusted mean = 1.40 Adjusted mean = 1.40 Mean difference = 0.00 HomVEE calculated = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p = 1.00

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Number of sex partners, past year
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
19-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 219 children Adjusted mean = 1.68 Adjusted mean = 1.55 Mean difference = 0.13 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Number of sex partners, past year
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
19-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 231 children Adjusted mean = 1.73 Adjusted mean = 1.55 Mean difference = 0.18 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
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
Submitted by user on

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.

Submitted by user on
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.
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.

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
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 home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers Mean = 2.46 Mean = 2.27 Mean difference = 0.20 HomVEE calculated = 3.32 Statistically significant, p < .05
Submitted by user on
Outcome examined with repeated measures.
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 HomVEE calculated = 2.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
Outcome examined with repeated measures.
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4-6)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers Mean = 2.27 Mean = 2.08 Mean difference = 0.19 HomVEE calculated = 2.83 Statistically significant, p < .05
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = 1.70 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = 2.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
Outcome examined with repeated measures.
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers Mean = 88.78 Mean = 85.70 Mean difference = 3.07 HomVEE calculated = 3.91 Statistically significant, p < .05
Submitted by user on
Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Conduct grades (grades 1-6)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers Mean = 2.93 Mean = 2.86 Mean difference = 0.07 HomVEE calculated = 1.61 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = 1.79 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Conduct grades (grades 4-6)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers Mean = 2.91 Mean = 2.86 Mean difference = 0.05 HomVEE calculated = 0.93 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
Outcome examined with repeated measures.
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 HomVEE calculated = 1.87 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers % = 15.00 % = 15.00 OR = 0.97 HomVEE calculated = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).
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 HomVEE 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 HomVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Ever retained
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers % = 23.00 % = 27.00 OR = 0.77 HomVEE calculated = -0.16 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).
Externalizing disorders
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 years Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 594 mothers, 578 children, and 548 teachers % (adjusted) = 19.70 Adjusted mean % = 17.80 OR = 1.13 HomVEE calculated = 0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Externalizing disorders
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 years Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers % (adjusted) = 24.00 Adjusted mean % = 22.00 OR = 1.12 HomVEE 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 Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers Mean = 40.52 Mean = 34.85 Mean difference = 5.67 HomVEE calculated = 3.39 Statistically significant, p < .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 HomVEE calculated = 2.12 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4-6), percentile1
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers Mean = 36.86 Mean = 33.67 Mean difference = 3.19 HomVEE calculated = 1.87 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.89 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers %(adjusted) = 32.00 Adjusted mean % = 36.00 OR = 0.81 HomVEE calculated = -0.13 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
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 HomVEE 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 HomVEE calculated = -0.42 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers Mean = 8.63 Mean = 8.72 Mean difference = -0.09 HomVEE calculated = -0.39 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 home visitors and comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 326 mothers % (adjusted = 30.00 Adjusted mean % = 27.00 OR = 1.17 HomVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Total problems
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 years Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 594 mothers, 578 children, and 548 teachers % (adjusted) = 23.70 Adjusted mean % = 19.80 OR = 1.26 HomVEE 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 HomVEE calculated = -0.69 Statistically significant, p < .05
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
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

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), Externalizing Behavior Problems (borderline or clinical threshold)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

574 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.21 Unadjusted proportion = 0.18 Mean difference = 0.02 HomVEE calculated = 0.09

Not statistically significant, p = 0.50

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), Externalizing Behavior Problems (borderline or clinical threshold)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

611 children Adjusted proportion = 0.08 Adjusted proportion = 0.07 Odds ratio = 1.13 HomVEE calculated = 0.07

Not statistically significant, p= 0.72

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), Internalizing Behavior Problems (borderline or clinical threshold)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

577 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.25 Unadjusted proportion = 0.32 Mean difference = -0.07 HomVEE calculated = -0.21

Not statistically significant, p = 0.09

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), Internalizing Behavior Problems (borderline or clinical threshold)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

625 children Adjusted proportion = 0.17 Adjusted proportion = 0.18 Odds ratio = 0.92 HomVEE calculated = -0.05

Not statistically significant, p= 0.73

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), Internalizing Behavior Problems (borderline or clinical threshold)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

618 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.13 Unadjusted proportion = 0.15 Mean difference = -0.02 HomVEE calculated = -0.08

Not statistically significant, p = 0.62

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), Total Behavior Problems (borderline or clinical threshold)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

575 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.25 Unadjusted proportion = 0.21 Mean difference = 0.04 HomVEE calculated = 0.13

Not statistically significant, p = 0.31

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), Total Behavior Problems (borderline or clinical threshold)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

611 children Adjusted proportion = 0.07 Adjusted proportion = 0.04 Odds ratio = 1.60 HomVEE calculated = 0.28

Not statistically significant, p= 0.22

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA), Total Behavior Problems (borderline or clinical threshold)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

616 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.03 Unadjusted proportion = 0.06 Mean difference = -0.03 HomVEE calculated = -0.48

Not statistically significant, p = 0.11

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) Externalizing Behavior Problems, borderline or clinical threshold

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

620 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.18 Unadjusted proportion = 0.20 Mean difference = -0.02 HomVEE calculated = -0.09

Not statistically significant, p = 0.51

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Any positive STI laboratory test result

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Child gender (boys)

286 children Adjusted proportion = 0.15 Adjusted proportion = 0.15 Odds ratio = 0.95 HomVEE calculated = -0.03

Not statistically significant, p= 0.89

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Any positive STI laboratory test result

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

319 children Adjusted proportion = 0.26 Adjusted proportion = 0.23 Odds ratio = 1.16 HomVEE calculated = 0.09

Not statistically significant, p= 0.60

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Current drug use in the past month or positive lab test result

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

613 children Adjusted proportion = 0.51 Adjusted proportion = 0.48 Odds ratio = 1.11 HomVEE calculated = 0.06

Not statistically significant, p= 0.55

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Facial Emotion Recognition Task, Emotion recognition

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability

329 children Adjusted mean = 54.19 Adjusted mean = 52.32 Mean difference = 1.87 Study reported = 0.22

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Facial Emotion Recognition Task, Emotion recognition

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

617 children Adjusted mean = 53.75 Adjusted mean = 52.55 Mean difference = 1.20 Study reported = 0.14

Not statistically significant, p= 0.08

Graduated from high school

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability

333 children Adjusted proportion = 0.71 Adjusted proportion = 0.70 Odds ratio = 1.06 HomVEE calculated = 0.04

Not statistically significant, p= 0.83

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Graduated from high school

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

619 children Adjusted proportion = 0.76 Adjusted proportion = 0.72 Odds ratio = 1.21 HomVEE calculated = 0.12

Not statistically significant, p= 0.35

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Graduated with honors

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

619 children Adjusted proportion = 0.09 Adjusted proportion = 0.04 Odds ratio = 2.12 HomVEE calculated = 0.46

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Graduated with honors

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability

333 children Adjusted proportion = 0.08 Adjusted proportion = 0.03 Odds ratio = 3.34 HomVEE calculated = 0.73

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

HIV risk

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

604 children Adjusted mean = -13.77 Adjusted mean = -13.50 Mean difference = -0.27 Study reported = -0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.38

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III), Receptive language

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

621 children Adjusted mean = 82.34 Adjusted mean = 81.60 Mean difference = 0.74 Study reported = 0.05

Not statistically significant, p= 0.55

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III), Receptive language

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability

331 children Adjusted mean = 82.32 Adjusted mean = 79.02 Mean difference = 3.30 Study reported = 0.24

Statistically significant, p= 0.05

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III), Receptive language

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability

323 children Unadjusted mean = 81.13 Unadjusted mean = 79.49 Mean difference = 1.64 HomVEE calculated = 0.13

Not statistically significant, p = 0.28

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III), Receptive language

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014, full sample

612 children Unadjusted mean = 83.65 Unadjusted mean = 82.49 Mean difference = 1.16 HomVEE calculated = 0.09

Not statistically significant, p = 0.31

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Time to first live birth

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

324 children Adjusted proportion = 0.14 Adjusted proportion = 0.17 Incidence rate = -0.03 Study reported = 0.80

Not statistically significant, p= 0.44

Time to first live birth

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Child gender (boys)

305 children Adjusted proportion = 0.08 Adjusted proportion = 0.06 Incidence rate = 0.01 Study reported = 1.20

Not statistically significant, p= 0.62

Time to first pregnancy

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Child gender (girls)

324 children Adjusted proportion = 0.23 Adjusted proportion = 0.26 Incidence rate = -0.04 Study reported = 0.85

Not statistically significant, p= 0.46

Time to first pregnancy

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

18 years

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT, Memphis TN, 1990-2014; Subgroup: Child gender (boys)

305 children Adjusted proportion = 0.15 Adjusted proportion = 0.17 Incidence rate = -0.02 Study reported = 0.86

Not statistically significant, p= 0.57

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

Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total competence score

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

15-month follow-up

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

932 children Adjusted mean = 27.50 Adjusted mean = 27.60 Difference = -0.10 Not available

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available.

Received any early intervention services (%)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

15-month follow-up

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

910 mothers Adjusted proportion = 0.04 Adjusted proportion = 0.04 Difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.05

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available.

Use of nonparental child care

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

15-month follow-up

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

905 children Adjusted proportion = 0.51 Adjusted proportion = 0.56 Difference = -0.05 Study reported = -0.12

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available.

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

Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total problem score (fixed effect random slope analysis)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

15 months old

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States, full sample

929 children Not reported Not reported Not reported Study reported = -0.12

Not statistically significant, p= 0.11

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total problem score (restricted maximum likelihood analysis)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

15 months old

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States, full sample

929 children Not reported Not reported Not reported Study reported = -0.12

Not statistically significant, p= 0.16

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total problem score (split-sample analysis)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

15 months old

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States, full sample

929 children Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.02

Not statistically significant, p= 0.69

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

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 and comparison (Elmira) 164 children Adjusted mean = 4.05 Adjusted mean = 3.93 Mean difference = 0.12 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Crying (mother-reported number of episodes last 2 weeks)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 163 children Adjusted mean = 3.44 Adjusted mean = 3.93 Mean difference = -0.49 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Mother- reported positive mood
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 199 children Adjusted mean = 2.34 Adjusted mean = 2.29 Mean difference = 0.05 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Mother-reported positive mood
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 209 children Adjusted mean = 2.40 Adjusted mean = 2.29 Mean difference = 0.11 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
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
Submitted by user on
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
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p = 1.00
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.25 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.97
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.18 Not statistically significant,
p = 1.00
Submitted by user on
Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Incidence of sex partners (number)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
15-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 245 adolescents Adjusted mean = 1.16 Adjusted mean = 1.56 Mean difference = -0.40 Not available Not statistically significant,
p = 0.90
Submitted by user on
Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the log-incidence difference.
Incidence of sex partners (number)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
15-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 227 adolescents Adjusted mean = 1.10 Adjusted mean = 1.56 Mean difference = -0.46 Not available Not statistically significant,
p = 0.48
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant, p = 0.43
CBCL (externalizing problems)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children % (adjusted) = 22.00 Adjusted mean % = 24.00 OR = 0.87 HomVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.63
CBCL (internalizing problems)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children % (adjusted) = 20.00 Adjusted mean % = 17.00 OR = 1.30 HomVEE calculated = 0.16 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.40
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant, p = 0.50
CBCL (total problems, percentage)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children Adjusted mean % = 3.70 Adjusted mean % = 6.60 Difference = -2.90 Study reported = -0.37 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.31
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.37 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Submitted by user on
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
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children Adjusted mean = 88.61 Adjusted mean = 85.42 Mean difference = 3.19 Study reported = 0.25 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
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 mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children Adjusted mean = 92.07 Adjusted mean = 90.87 Mean difference = 1.20 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.44
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); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children Adjusted mean = 98.58 Adjusted mean = 101.10 Mean difference = -2.52 Study reported = -0.25 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
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); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children Adjusted mean = 20.90 Adjusted mean = 29.84 Mean difference = -8.94 Study reported = -0.34 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
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); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children Adjusted mean = 100.30 Adjusted mean = 98.98 Mean difference = 1.32 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.27
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); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 335 children Adjusted mean = 81.75 Adjusted mean = 79.08 Mean difference = 2.67 Study reported = 0.21 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.07
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.26 Statistically significant,
p = 0.05
Submitted by user on
Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
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 infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 333 children Adjusted mean = 2.68 Adjusted mean = 2.44 Mean difference = 0.24 Study reported = 0.22 Statistically significant,
p = 0.02
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
Submitted by user on
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 infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 333 children Adjusted mean = 44.89 Adjusted mean = 35.72 Mean difference = 9.17 Study reported = 0.33 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
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
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.20 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.37
Submitted by user on
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); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 333 children Adjusted mean = 2.68 Adjusted mean = 2.65 Mean difference = 0.03 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.75
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.97
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.18 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.25
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 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
Submitted by user on
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); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 333 children Adjusted mean = 99.56 Adjusted mean = 99.37 Mean difference = 0.19 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.88
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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
24-month follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 136 children = 0.10 = 0.19 OR = 0.48 HomVEE calculated = -0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 136 children Adjusted mean = 90.18 Adjusted mean = 86.20 Mean difference = 3.98 Not available Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Submitted by user on
The confidence interval includes 0, but according to the study, the result is statistically significant (α = 0.05).
PLS-3 (language delay)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
21 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 406 children % (adjusted) = 6.00 Adjusted mean % = 12.00 OR = 0.48 HomVEE calculated = -0.45 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
PLS-3 (language delay)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
21-month follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 142 children = 0.07 = 0.18 OR = 0.32 HomVEE calculated = -0.65 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
PLS-3 (language development)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
21-month follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 138 children = 0.13 = 0.32 OR = 0.33 HomVEE calculated = -0.31 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6-month follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 138 children = 0.24 = 0.40 OR = 0.46 HomVEE calculated = -0.45 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6-month follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 138 children = 0.12 = 0.21 OR = 0.51 HomVEE calculated = -0.34 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 138 children Adjusted mean = 2.88 Adjusted mean = 2.92 Mean difference = -0.04 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
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
Submitted by user on

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.

PLS-3 (Total language score)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
4-year follow-up Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 144 children Adjusted mean = 91.39 Adjusted mean = 86.73 Mean difference = 4.66 Study reported = 0.31 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
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
Submitted by user on

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 visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 144 children Adjusted mean = 100.41 Adjusted mean = 96.66 Mean difference = 3.75 Study reported = 0.38 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.29 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
Submitted by user on

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
Submitted by user on

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 visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 144 children Adjusted mean = 99.54 Adjusted mean = 98.42 Mean difference = 1.12 Study reported = 0.11 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.51
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
Submitted by user on

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 visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 144 children Adjusted mean = 100.16 Adjusted mean = 95.48 Mean difference = 4.68 Study reported = 0.47 Statistically significant,
p = 0.00
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
Submitted by user on

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 visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 144 children Adjusted mean = 13.16 Adjusted mean = 12.95 Mean difference = 0.21 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.88
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.37 p-value = 0.37
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.20 p-value = 0.33
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.03 p-value = 0.9
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.01 p-value = 0.94
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = 0.01 p-value = 0.98
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
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
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
CBCL
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
24-month follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 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 development delay)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
24-month follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children = 0.19 = 0.19 OR = 0.97 HomVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children Adjusted mean = 88.54 Adjusted mean = 86.20 Mean difference = 2.33 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 HomVEE calculated = -0.06 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 HomVEE calculated = -0.45 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
PLS-3 (language delay)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
21-month follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children = 0.13 = 0.18 OR = 0.66 HomVEE calculated = -0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 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
PLS-3 (language development)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
21-month follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 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 Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 158 children = 0.22 = 0.32 OR = 0.63 HomVEE calculated = -0.31 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 158 children = 0.30 = 0.40 OR = 0.64 HomVEE calculated = -0.27 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 158 children = 0.17 = 0.21 OR = 0.77 HomVEE calculated = -0.16 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 158 children Adjusted mean = 2.95 Adjusted mean = 2.92 Mean difference = 0.02 Not available HomVEE = > 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 HomVEE 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 HomVEE 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 HomVEE calculated = -0.25 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
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
PLS-3 (Total language score)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
4-year follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children Adjusted mean = 90.09 Adjusted mean = 86.73 Mean difference = 3.36 Study reported = 0.23 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.13
Behavioral adaptation in testing
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
4-year follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children Adjusted mean = 99.51 Adjusted mean = 96.66 Mean difference = 2.85 Study reported = 0.28 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.10
Emotional regulation in testing
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
4-year follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children Adjusted mean = 99.29 Adjusted mean = 98.42 Mean difference = 0.87 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.59
Executive function composite
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
4-year follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children Adjusted mean = 98.40 Adjusted mean = 95.48 Mean difference = 2.92 Study reported = 0.29 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.06
Externalizing behavior problems
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
4-year follow-up Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children Adjusted mean = 12.91 Adjusted mean = 12.95 Mean difference = -0.04 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.98

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 HomVEE calculated = -0.26 p-value = 0.59
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.29 p-value = 0.26
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.53 p-value = 0.1
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.18 p-value = 0.47
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.17 p-value = 0.42
Submitted by user on
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
Submitted by user on
Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.
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
Any therapeutic services - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 141 children Unadjusted mean = 0.17 Unadjusted mean = 0.36 Mean difference = -0.19 HomVEE calculated = -0.63 Statistically significant, p = 0.01
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Any therapeutic services - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 127 children Unadjusted mean = 0.35 Unadjusted mean = 0.30 Mean difference = 0.05 HomVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p = 0.51
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Arithmetic achievement standard score - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 141 children Adjusted mean = 94.27 Adjusted mean = 92.66 Mean difference = 1.61 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant, p = 0.44
Arithmetic achievement standard score - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 128 children Adjusted mean = 96.72 Adjusted mean = 96.53 Mean difference = 0.19 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.93
Arithmetic achievement standard score - averaged over 6 and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 128 children Adjusted mean = 95.49 Adjusted mean = 94.60 Mean difference = 0.89 Study reported = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p = 0.63
Behvioral regulation in testing - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 140 children Adjusted mean = 99.13 Adjusted mean = 97.16 Mean difference = 1.97 Study reported = 0.23 Not statistically significant, p = 0.18
Dysregulated aggression - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 141 children Adjusted mean = 100.40 Adjusted mean = 103.26 Mean difference = -2.86 Study reported = -0.26 Not statistically significant, p = 0.12
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
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
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Grade retention - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 127 children Unadjusted mean = 0.13 Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Mean difference = 0.05 HomVEE calculated = 0.29 Not statistically significant, p = 0.38
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Intellectual functioning - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 141 children Adjusted mean = 96.58 Adjusted mean = 94.85 Mean difference = 1.73 Study reported = 0.16 Not statistically significant, p = 0.35
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 Mean difference = -0.05 Study reported = 0.44 Not statistically significant, p = 0.08
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Percent incoherent stories - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 141 children Adjusted mean = 58.53 Adjusted mean = 65.63 Mean difference = -7.10 Study reported = -0.23 Not statistically significant, p = 0.17
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Reading achievement standard score - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 141 children Adjusted mean = 95.00 Adjusted mean = 93.40 Mean difference = 1.60 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant, p = 0.46
Reading achievement standard score - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 128 children Adjusted mean = 97.20 Adjusted mean = 94.60 Mean difference = 2.60 Study reported = 0.21 Not statistically significant, p = 0.22
Reading achievement standard score - averaged over 6 and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 128 children Adjusted mean = 96.10 Adjusted mean = 94.00 Mean difference = 2.10 Study reported = 0.17 Not statistically significant, p = 0.27
Receptive language - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 141 children Adjusted mean = 93.31 Adjusted mean = 90.56 Mean difference = 2.75 Study reported = 0.21 Not statistically significant, p = 0.16
Receptive language - averaged over 2, 4, and 6 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 141 children Adjusted mean = 92.96 Adjusted mean = 89.01 Mean difference = 3.95 Study reported = 0.30 Statistically significant, p = 0.01
Special education/remedial services - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 127 children Unadjusted mean = 0.19 Unadjusted mean = 0.34 Mean difference = -0.14 HomVEE calculated = -0.46 Not statistically significant, p = 0.06
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Sustained attention - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 138 children Adjusted mean = 9.28 Adjusted mean = 8.32 Mean difference = 0.96 Study reported = 0.33 Statistically significant, p = 0.05
Sustained attention - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 126 children Adjusted mean = 10.12 Adjusted mean = 9.17 Mean difference = 0.95 Study reported = 0.33 Not statistically significant, p = 0.08
Sustained attention - averaged over 4, 6, and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 126 children Adjusted mean = 9.83 Adjusted mean = 8.80 Mean difference = 1.03 Study reported = 0.36 Statistically significant, p = 0.01
Total behavioral problems - 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 = -0.02 Study reported = 0.76 Not statistically significant, p = 0.46
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Visual attention/task switching errors - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 126 children Adjusted mean = 0.89 Adjusted mean = 1.16 Mean difference = -0.27 Study reported = -0.25 Not statistically significant, p = 0.16
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Working memory errors - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 123 children Adjusted mean = 6.13 Adjusted mean = 5.47 Mean difference = 0.66 Study reported = 0.26 Not statistically significant, p = 0.15
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
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 mean % = 11.00 Adjusted mean % = 13.00 OR = 0.83 HomVEE calculated = -0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 mean % = 19.00 Adjusted mean % = 28.00 OR = 0.62 HomVEE calculated = -0.31 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 mean % = 26.00 Adjusted mean % = 34.00 OR = 0.68 HomVEE calculated = -0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Submitted by user on
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 HomVEE calculated = -0.34 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Submitted by user on
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
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
Child's verbal ability - age 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Nurse home visiting from pregnancy to 2 years vs. control (Memphis) 721 mother/child dyads Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p>0.10
Child's verbal ability - age 6
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting from pregnancy to 2 years vs. control (Memphis) 721 mother/child dyads Not reported Not reported Not reported HomVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant, p = 0.10
Physical aggression - age 12
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 years Nurse home visiting from pregnancy to 2 years vs. control (Memphis) 721 mother/child dyads Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p>0.10
Physical aggression - age 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Nurse home visiting from pregnancy to 2 years vs. control (Memphis) 721 mother/child dyads Not reported Not reported Not reported HomVEE calculated = -0.21 Statistically significant, p = 0.01
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Physical aggression - age 6
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting from pregnancy to 2 years vs. control (Memphis) 721 mother/child dyads Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p>0.10
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
Any therapeutic services - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 165 children Unadjusted mean = 0.22 Unadjusted mean = 0.36 Mean difference = -0.13 HomVEE calculated = -0.40 Not statistically significant, p = 0.07
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Any therapeutic services - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 155 children Unadjusted mean = 0.39 Unadjusted mean = 0.30 Mean difference = 0.09 HomVEE calculated = 0.25 Not statistically significant, p = 0.23
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Arithmetic achievement standard score - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 164 children Adjusted mean = 93.04 Adjusted mean = 92.66 Mean difference = 0.38 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.85
Arithmetic achievement standard score - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 156 children Adjusted mean = 97.11 Adjusted mean = 96.53 Mean difference = 0.58 Study reported = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p = 0.77
Arithmetic achievement standard score - averaged over 6 and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 156 children Adjusted mean = 95.07 Adjusted mean = 94.60 Mean difference = 0.47 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p = 0.79
Behvioral regulation in testing - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 164 children Adjusted mean = 99.89 Adjusted mean = 97.16 Mean difference = 2.73 Study reported = 0.32 Statistically significant, p = 0.05
Dysregulated aggression - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 162 children Adjusted mean = 99.34 Adjusted mean = 103.26 Mean difference = -3.92 Study reported = -0.36 Statistically significant, p = 0.02
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Grade retention - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 155 children Unadjusted mean = 0.11 Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Mean difference = 0.02 HomVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p = 0.62
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Intellectual functioning - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 166 children Adjusted mean = 96.81 Adjusted mean = 94.85 Mean difference = 1.96 Study reported = 0.18 Not statistically significant, p = 0.26
Percent incoherent stories - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 162 children Adjusted mean = 49.94 Adjusted mean = 65.63 Mean difference = -15.69 Study reported = -0.50 Statistically significant, p = 0.00
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Reading achievement standard score - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 164 children Adjusted mean = 96.16 Adjusted mean = 93.40 Mean difference = 2.76 Study reported = 0.22 Not statistically significant, p = 0.17
Reading achievement standard score - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 156 children Adjusted mean = 97.24 Adjusted mean = 94.60 Mean difference = 2.64 Study reported = 0.21 Not statistically significant, p = 0.18
Reading achievement standard score - averaged over 6 and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 156 children Adjusted mean = 96.70 Adjusted mean = 94.00 Mean difference = 2.70 Study reported = 0.22 Not statistically significant, p = 0.13
Receptive language - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children Adjusted mean = 92.59 Adjusted mean = 90.56 Mean difference = 2.03 Study reported = 0.16 Not statistically significant, p = 0.28
Receptive language - averaged over 2, 4, and 6 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 163 children Adjusted mean = 90.90 Adjusted mean = 89.01 Mean difference = 1.89 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.22
Special education/remedial services - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 155 children Unadjusted mean = 0.32 Unadjusted mean = 0.34 Mean difference = -0.01 HomVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.89
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Sustained attention - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 160 children Adjusted mean = 8.71 Adjusted mean = 8.32 Mean difference = 0.39 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant, p = 0.39
Sustained attention - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 153 children Adjusted mean = 9.25 Adjusted mean = 9.17 Mean difference = 0.08 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.86
Sustained attention - averaged over 4, 6, and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 153 children Adjusted mean = 9.21 Adjusted mean = 8.80 Mean difference = 0.41 Study reported = 0.14 Not statistically significant, p = 0.24
Visual attention/task switching errors - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 154 children Adjusted mean = 0.84 Adjusted mean = 1.16 Mean difference = -0.32 Study reported = -0.30 Not statistically significant, p = 0.08
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Working memory errors - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver); Subgroup: Mother has psychological vulnerability 150 children Adjusted mean = 5.79 Adjusted mean = 5.47 Mean difference = 0.32 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant, p = 0.46
Submitted by user on
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.