Negative effect is favorable
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.
Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2023
The Family Connects* model aims to intervene with families early to help them address health concerns and access support to reduce potential disparity gaps later, especially among families that are part of historically marginalized groups. Families in need might be unaware of local resources and how to navigate various systems to access services. Thus, registered nurses working as Family Connects home visitors provide free check-ups to mothers and babies during the early postpartum period and help connect families to local resources.
Family Connects is a universal model built on the premise that all families can benefit from postpartum nursing support or referrals. The model is designed to serve all families in a community, including families with surrogate, adoptive, and bereaved parents. The model’s aim to achieve population-level results is informed by a socioecological framework in which communities’ beliefs, practices, and environmental structures influence the choices, and thereby the actions, of the communities’ families. Similarly, communities are influenced by their state’s context, and each state is nested within a broader setting of national influences. Thus, Family Connects International (FCI) works at the national, state, community, and family levels to support newborns and their families.
*The model began in 2008 as Durham Connects—a pilot that served Durham County, North Carolina. As part of subsequent replication, the model was renamed Family Connects to reflect its larger service area. The model has not changed between the pilot and replication.
Family Connects nurses assess newborns and their mothers. The nurses then use the assessment results to speak with families about concrete next steps to address opportunities and concerns. For example, they might advise a family to seek immediate medical care when necessary. Family Connects nurses consider the needs of the entire family and might recommend mental health services or medical care for other family members as needed. Program staff follow up with families to ensure their needs are met.
Please contact the model developer for information about the model’s curriculum.
The Family Connects model is a universal model in which all parents of newborns in a community are offered a home visit with a nurse within about three weeks of birth.
Kimberly Friedman, Managing Director, External Resources
Family Connects International
3710 University Drive, Suite 310
Durham, NC 27707
Email: info@familyconnects.org
Website: http://www.familyconnects.org/
Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mother possible anxiety disorder | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.21 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.30 | OR = 0.65 | HomVEE calculated = -0.27 | Statistically significant, p<0.05 |
Mother possible clinical depression disorder | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.08 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.12 | OR = 0.69 | HomVEE calculated = -0.29 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.25 |
Mother possible substance use problems | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 530 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.05 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.06 | OR = 0.80 | HomVEE calculated = -0.19 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.58 |
Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inpatient hospital overnights (component of total child emergency medical care) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 12 - 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 0.02 | Adjusted mean = 0.11 | Mean difference = -0.09 | Study reported = 0.12 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.06 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Inpatient hospital overnights (component of total child emergency medical care) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Through age 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 0.13 | Adjusted mean = 0.86 | Mean difference = -0.73 | Study reported = 0.24 | Statistically significant, p= <0.001 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Outpatient ER visits (component of total child emergency medical care) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 12 - 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 0.71 | Adjusted mean = 0.72 | Mean difference = -0.01 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.88 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Outpatient ER visits (component of total child emergency medical care) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Through age 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 1.39 | Adjusted mean = 1.55 | Mean difference = -0.16 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.47 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Total child emergency medical care |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 12 - 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 0.73 | Adjusted mean = 0.84 | Mean difference = -0.11 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.73 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Total child emergency medical care |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Through age 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 1.52 | Adjusted mean = 2.41 | Mean difference = -0.89 | Study reported = 0.24 | Statistically significant, p= <0.001 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of emergency department visits, birth to 12 months (hospital records) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
birth to 12 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.68 | Unadjusted mean = 0.83 | Mean difference = -0.15 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p = 0.22 |
No. of overnights in hospital, birth to 12 months (hospital records) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
birth to 12 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.11 | Unadjusted mean = 0.74 | Mean difference = -0.63 | Study reported = 0.27 | Statistically significant, p<0.001 |
No. of total emergency medical care episodes, 6 to 12 months (hospital records) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 to 12 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.36 | Unadjusted mean = 0.52 | Mean difference = -0.16 | Study reported = 0.14 | Statistically significant, p = 0.03 |
No. of total emergency medical care episodes, birth to 12 months (hospital records) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
birth to 12 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.78 | Unadjusted mean = 1.57 | Mean difference = -0.79 | Study reported = 0.28 | Statistically significant, p<0.001 |
Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Did not have emergency medical care episodes (hospital records), proportion | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.74 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.72 | Mean difference = 0.02 | HomVEE calculated = 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p=0.50 |
Did not have emergency medical care episodes (parent report) proportion | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.50 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.51 | Mean difference = -0.01 | HomVEE calculated = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p=0.70 |
Most recent well-baby visit within past month | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.70 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.67 | OR = 1.12 | HomVEE calculated = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.54 |
No. of emergency department visits (hospital records) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.32 | Unadjusted mean = 0.39 | Mean difference = 0.14 | HomVEE calculated = -0.09 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.36 |
No. of emergency medical visits (parent report) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.82 | Unadjusted mean = 0.98 | Mean difference = 0.17 | HomVEE calculated = -0.12 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.07 |
No. of overnights in hospital (parent report) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.08 | Unadjusted mean = 0.40 | Mean difference = 1.60 | Study reported = 0.20 | Statistically significant, p<0.001 |
No. of total emergency medical care episodes (hospital records) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.43 | Unadjusted mean = 1.05 | Mean difference = 0.91 | Study reported = 0.26 | Statistically significant, p<0.001 |
No. of total emergency medical care episodes (parent report) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.89 | Unadjusted mean = 1.37 | Mean difference = 0.40 | Study reported = 0.21 | Statistically significant, p<0.001 |
Three or more emergency medical care episodes (hospital records), proportion | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.03 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.09 | Mean difference = -0.05 | HomVEE calculated = -0.65 | Statistically significant, p<0.01 |
Three or more emergency medical care episodes (parent report), proportion | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.09 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.13 | Mean difference = -0.04 | HomVEE calculated = -0.26 | Statistically significant, p<0.01 |
Two or more emergency medical care episodes (hospital records), proportion | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.10 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.15 | Mean difference = -0.06 | HomVEE calculated = -0.31 | Statistically significant, p<0.01 |
Two or more emergency medical care episodes (parent report), proportion | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.21 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.25 | Mean difference = -0.04 | HomVEE calculated = -0.13 | Not statistically significant, p=0.13 |
Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Father–infant relationship quality | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 524 families | Unadjusted mean = 2.09 | Unadjusted mean = 1.92 | Mean difference = 0.11 | HomVEE calculated = 0.21 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.08 |
Mother knowledge of infant development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.75 | Unadjusted mean = 0.77 | Mean difference = 0.02 | HomVEE calculated = -0.11 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.10 |
Mother negative parenting behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.32 | Unadjusted mean = 0.33 | Mean difference = 0.02 | HomVEE calculated = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.59 |
Mother positive parenting behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 4.12 | Unadjusted mean = 4.01 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.25 | Statistically significant, p<0.01 |
Mother sense of parenting competence | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 4.62 | Unadjusted mean = 4.63 | Mean difference = 0.01 | HomVEE calculated = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.83 |
Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of community connections | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Infant Age 6 months | Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births | 531 families | Unadjusted mean = 5.02 | Unadjusted mean = 4.31 | Mean difference = 0.86 | Study reported = 0.28 | Statistically significant, p<0.001 |
Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emergency medical care for accidents or injuries |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Through age 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 0.27 | Adjusted mean = 0.30 | Mean difference = -0.03 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.45 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Maltreatment-related injuries |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Through age 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 0.02 | Adjusted mean = 0.02 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p= <0.30 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Multiple emergency visits for accidents and injuries |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Through age 24 months |
Children born in Durham County, North Carolina during the 18-month study period |
531 children | Adjusted mean = 0.03 | Adjusted mean = 0.06 | Mean difference = -0.03 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p= 0.10 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
Title | General population | Tribal population | Domains with favorable effects |
---|---|---|---|
Family Connects | Meets HHS criteria | Does not meet HHS criteria for tribal population because the model has not been evaluated with a tribal population. |
|
Family Connects is a universal nurse home visiting model available to all families with newborns residing within a defined service area. The model aims to help families enhance maternal and child health and well-being and reduce rates of child abuse and neglect. It consists of one nurse home visit within three weeks of birth and follow-up contacts to confirm families’ successful linkages with community resources. During the initial home visit, a nurse conducts assessments of the mother and newborn. Nurses may make one or two follow-up visits or calls to provide additional focused support. If a family has a significant risk or need, the nurse might advise the family to seek immediate medical care. The model began as a pilot under the name Durham Connects and is being replicated under the name Family Connects.
For more information, see the research database. For more information on the criteria used to rate research, please see details of HomVEE’s methods and standards.