Manuscript Detail

View Revisions

LeCroy, C. W., & Lopez, D. (2018). A randomized controlled trial of Healthy Families: 6-month and 1-year follow-up. Prevention Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0931-4

Model(s) Reviewed: Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Manuscript screening details
Screening decision Screening conclusion
Passes screens Eligible for review
Study design details
Rating Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Reassignment Confounding factors
High Randomized controlled trial Low Established on race/ethnicity, SES, and baseline measures of the outcomes None None
Notes:

Information on baseline equivalence for race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and baseline measures of the outcomes relied on correspondence with the author. In addition to the 32 findings that received a high rating, 8 findings assessed at the six-month follow-up period received a moderate rating because the outcomes were assessable at baseline and the authors did not establish baseline equivalence or include a statistical control. At the 12-month follow-up period, 26 findings about outcomes that were not assessable at baseline received a moderate rating. Another 15 were assessable at baseline, but the authors did not establish baseline equivalence or include a statistical control; these findings received a low rating.

Study characteristics
Study participants The study randomly assigned 245 families, 98 families to receive the Healthy Families program and 147 families to the comparison group. Two-thirds of the sample were Hispanic, 15 percent were mixed race, 11 percent were White, and 4 percent were Black. On average mothers were 26 years old, 25 percent were employed, and 42 percent did not graduate high school or have a GED. Local hospitals in Arizona referred families to the study at the time of the children’s birth. They were eligible to participate if they were at moderate or high risk for child abuse based on standard risk screening instruments.
Setting Arizona
Intervention services Families assigned to the treatment group received services from the Healthy Families Arizona program. This included a focus on four areas: (1) promoting positive child development, (2) facilitating child health and adherence to well-child visits, (3) improving the parent–child dynamic and promoting positive parent–child interactions, and (4) and promoting the physical and mental health of the mother. The program used the Growing Great Kids curriculum, which aims to strengthen protective factors, enhance parental attachment and resiliency, and strengthen child development. Families in the treatment group received weekly home visits during the first 6 months, after which visits tapered in frequency. Most of the families in the study received at least six home visits, with the average family receiving 13.3 visits by the 6-month follow-up and 23.6 visits by the 12-month follow-up.
Comparison conditions Families in the comparison group received information about their children’s developmental progress and referrals to services as needed.
Staff characteristics and training Home visitors were paraprofessionals who received specific training to act as home visitors for the Healthy Families program. More than half of the home visitors had been with the program at least a year or longer. Almost all of the home visitors were parents themselves.
Funding sources Rigorous Evaluation of Existing Child Abuse Prevention Programs, Children’s Bureau, Award 90CA178.
Author affiliation None of the study authors are developers of this program model.
Study Registration:

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: None found. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE beginning with the 2014 review.

Findings details

Child health
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High

Immunizations

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 children Unadjusted mean = 13.70 Unadjusted mean = 13.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.04

Not statistically significant, p= 0.79

High

Well-baby checks

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 children Unadjusted mean = 4.00 Unadjusted mean = 4.10 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.06

Not statistically significant, p= 0.70

Moderate

Breastfeeding

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted proportion = 0.89 Unadjusted proportion = 0.79 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.29

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Moderate

Immunizations

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 children Unadjusted mean = 19.00 Unadjusted mean = 19.80 Mean difference = -0.80 Study reported = -0.02

Not statistically significant, p= 0.23

Moderate

Well-baby checks

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 children Unadjusted mean = 0.98 Unadjusted mean = 1.00 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.15

Family economic self-sufficiency
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High

Job training or employment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted proportion = 0.49 Unadjusted proportion = 0.52 Mean difference = -0.03 Study reported = 0.09

Not statistically significant, p= 0.54

Linkages and referrals
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High

Use of resources

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.10 Unadjusted mean = 3.00 Mean difference = 1.10 Study reported = 0.24

Not statistically significant, p= 0.10

Moderate

Use of resources

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.10 Unadjusted mean = 2.30 Mean difference = 0.80 Study reported = 0.48

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Maternal health
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High

Emotional loneliness

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 9.80 Unadjusted mean = 10.00 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.03

Not statistically significant, p= 0.94

High

Hope

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 26.90 Unadjusted mean = 26.60 Mean difference = 0.30 Study reported = 0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.31

High

Subsequent pregnancy

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Cases = 1.00 Cases = 3.00 Not Reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Authors describe reduced subsequent pregnancies as favorable to the intervention.

High

Substance abuse treatment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted proportion = 0.01 Unadjusted proportion = 0.01 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.26

Not statistically significant, p = 0.07

Moderate

Contraception use

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted proportion = 0.76 Unadjusted proportion = 0.66 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.21

Not statistically significant, p= 0.14

Moderate

Mental health index

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 19.00 Unadjusted mean = 24.70 Mean difference = -5.70 Study reported = 0.35

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Moderate

Subsequent pregnancy

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.05 Unadjusted mean = 0.12 Mean difference = -0.07 Study reported = 0.25

Not statistically significant, p=0.10

Authors describe reduced subsequent pregnancies as favorable to the intervention.

Positive parenting practices
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High

Depression

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 39.80 Unadjusted mean = 39.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p= 0.85

High

Home environment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 42.80 Unadjusted mean = 39.90 Mean difference = 2.90 Study reported = 0.47

Statistically significant, p= 0.00

High

Linguistic dimension - Affective processes

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 17.40 Unadjusted mean = 15.00 Mean difference = 2.40 Study reported = 0.24

Not statistically significant, p= 0.15

High

Linguistic dimension - Anger

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.39 Unadjusted mean = 0.41 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = 0.06

Not statistically significant, p= 0.70

High

Linguistic dimension - Cause

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.10 Unadjusted mean = 1.30 Mean difference = 0.80 Study reported = 0.39

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

High

Linguistic dimension - Certainty

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.40 Unadjusted mean = 0.82 Mean difference = 0.58 Study reported = 0.27

Not statistically significant, p= 0.08

High

Linguistic dimension - Cognitive mechanism

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 16.40 Unadjusted mean = 13.40 Mean difference = 3.00 Study reported = 0.44

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

High

Linguistic dimension - Feeling expression

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.60 Unadjusted mean = 0.77 Mean difference = 0.83 Study reported = 0.50

Statistically significant, p= 0.00

High

Linguistic dimension - First person

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.70 Unadjusted mean = 3.30 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.10

Not statistically significant, p= 0.60

High

Linguistic dimension - Future

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.18 Unadjusted mean = 0.20 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.02

Not statistically significant, p= 0.81

High

Linguistic dimension - Insight

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.20 Unadjusted mean = 2.20 Mean difference = 1.00 Study reported = 0.33

Statistically significant, p= 0.05

Authors reported this finding as statistically significant.

High

Linguistic dimension - Negative valanced

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.90 Unadjusted mean = 2.80 Mean difference = -0.90 Study reported = 0.29

Not statistically significant, p= 0.08

High

Linguistic dimension - Past

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.94 Unadjusted mean = 1.65 Mean difference = -0.71 Study reported = 0.27

Not statistically significant, p= 0.10

High

Linguistic dimension - Perceptual process

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.20 Unadjusted mean = 2.90 Mean difference = 1.30 Study reported = 0.33

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

High

Linguistic dimension - Positive valanced

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 15.30 Unadjusted mean = 12.00 Mean difference = 3.30 Study reported = 0.37

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

High

Linguistic dimension - Present

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 17.00 Unadjusted mean = 14.60 Mean difference = 2.40 Study reported = 0.34

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

High

Linguistic dimension - Sad

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.78 Unadjusted mean = 1.50 Mean difference = -0.72 Study reported = 0.42

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

High

Linguistic dimension -Anxiety

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.20 Unadjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.33 Study reported = 0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.35

High

Mother's reading to child

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.10 Unadjusted mean = 3.60 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.38

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

High

Parent efficacy

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 26.20 Unadjusted mean = 25.80 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.11

Not statistically significant, p= 0.47

High

Parent/child behavior

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 46.00 Unadjusted mean = 44.90 Mean difference = 1.10 Study reported = 0.24

Not statistically significant, p= 0.13

High

Reduced chaotic household

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.20 Unadjusted mean = 1.40 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = 0.29

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

High

Regular routines

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.80 Unadjusted mean = 1.60 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.36

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

High

Role satisfaction

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 25.70 Unadjusted mean = 26.90 Mean difference = -1.20 Study reported = -0.33

Not statistically significant, p= 0.06

Moderate

Father contact with child

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 children Unadjusted mean = 0.85 Unadjusted mean = 0.84 Mean difference = 0.01 Study reported = 0.02

Not statistically significant, p= 0.86

Moderate

Home environment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 43.50 Unadjusted mean = 41.80 Mean difference = 1.70 Study reported = 0.32

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Affective processes

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 18.90 Unadjusted mean = 18.10 Mean difference = 0.80 Study reported = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.67

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Anger

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.57 Unadjusted mean = 0.52 Mean difference = 0.05 Study reported = -0.04

Not statistically significant, p= 0.84

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Cause

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.90 Unadjusted mean = 1.20 Mean difference = 1.70 Study reported = 0.50

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Certainty

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.20 Unadjusted mean = 1.90 Mean difference = -0.70 Study reported = -0.26

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Cognitive mechanism

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 16.50 Unadjusted mean = 13.40 Mean difference = 3.10 Study reported = 0.42

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Feeling expression

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.00 Unadjusted mean = 0.81 Mean difference = 1.19 Study reported = 0.39

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - First person

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.10 Unadjusted mean = 1.80 Mean difference = 1.30 Study reported = 0.34

Statistically significant, p= 0.00

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Future

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.22 Unadjusted mean = 0.13 Mean difference = 0.09 Study reported = 0.12

Not statistically significant, p= 0.55

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Insight

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.70 Unadjusted mean = 2.60 Mean difference = 1.10 Study reported = 0.28

Not statistically significant, p= 0.12

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Negative valanced

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.59 Unadjusted mean = 1.50 Mean difference = -0.91 Study reported = 0.54

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Past

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.65 Unadjusted mean = 0.61 Mean difference = 0.04 Study reported = -0.02

Not statistically significant, p= 0.87

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Perceptual process

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.50 Unadjusted mean = 3.10 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.10

Not statistically significant, p= 0.50

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Positive valanced

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 17.10 Unadjusted mean = 16.20 Mean difference = 0.90 Study reported = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.63

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Present

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 17.80 Unadjusted mean = 16.70 Mean difference = 1.10 Study reported = 0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.37

Moderate

Linguistic dimension - Sad

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.56 Unadjusted mean = 0.67 Mean difference = -0.11 Study reported = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.64

Moderate

Linguistic dimension -Anxiety

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.17 Unadjusted mean = 0.30 Mean difference = -0.13 Study reported = 0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.44

Moderate

Mobilizing resources

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 24.60 Unadjusted mean = 22.20 Mean difference = 2.40 Study reported = 0.43

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Moderate

Mother's reading to child

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 children Unadjusted mean = 3.90 Unadjusted mean = 4.00 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.09

Not statistically significant, p= 0.53

Moderate

Parent/child behavior

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 46.00 Unadjusted mean = 45.10 Mean difference = 0.90 Study reported = 0.21

Not statistically significant, p= 0.21

Moderate

Personal care

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 19.20 Unadjusted mean = 18.70 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.14

Not statistically significant, p= 0.38

Moderate

Problem solving

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 24.60 Unadjusted mean = 23.80 Mean difference = 0.80 Study reported = 0.20

Not statistically significant, p= 0.20

Moderate

Reduced chaotic household

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.80 Unadjusted mean = 1.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p= 0.95

Moderate

Regular routines

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

12 months

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.40 Unadjusted mean = 2.20 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.25

Not statistically significant, p= 0.18

Moderate

Safety practices

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted proportion = 0.70 Unadjusted proportion = 0.53 Mean difference = 0.17 Study reported = 0.17

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Moderate

Social support

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

6 months

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 21.60 Unadjusted mean = 20.60 Mean difference = 1.00 Study reported = 0.17

Not statistically significant, p= 0.26

Reductions in child maltreatment
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Moderate Spanked child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample 12 months 165 mothers Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = 0.23 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Authors report a positive effect as a reduction in violence.

Moderate Threatened child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample 12 months 165 mothers Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = 0.21 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Authors report a positive effect as a reduction in violence.

Moderate Total violence
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample 12 months 165 mothers Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = 0.31 Statistically significant, p< 0.04

Authors report a positive effect as a reduction in violence.

Outcome measure summary

Child health
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Immunizations

Frequency count of immunizations

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Well-baby checks

Frequency count of well-baby visits

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Breastfeeding

Ever breastfed

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Family economic self-sufficiency
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Job training or employment

Received job training or employment by follow-up

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linkages and referrals
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Use of resources

A count of specific resources that parents accessed (not further described)

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Maternal health
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Emotional loneliness

Social Loneliness subscale (DiTommaso and Spinner, 1993)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.86

Hope

Adult Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.67

Subsequent pregnancy

Whether became pregnant by follow-up

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Substance abuse treatment

Whether treated for substance abuse by follow-up

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Contraception use

Whether or not used contraceptives

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Mental health index

Rand Mental Health Inventory Mental Health Index (negative effect is favorable)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.91

Positive parenting practices
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Depression

Depression subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.84

Father contact with child

Frequency of father's contact

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Home environment

Home Environment subscale from Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.85

Linguistic dimension - Affective processes

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Anger

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Cause

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Certainty

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Cognitive mechanism

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Feeling expression

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - First person

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Future

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Insight

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Negative valanced

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Past

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Perceptual process

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Positive valanced

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Present

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Sad

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension -Anxiety

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Mother's reading to child

Frequency of mother's reading to child

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Parent efficacy

Parenting Efficacy subscale from Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.88

Parent/child behavior

Parent/Child Behavior subscale from Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.85

Reduced chaotic household

A single-item measure of reduction of household chaos

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Regular routines

A single-item measure of parents' use of regular routines (source not reported)

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Role satisfaction

Role Satisfaction subscale from Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.85

Mobilizing resources

Mobilizing Resources subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.78

Personal care

Personal Care subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.80

Problem solving

Problem Solving subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.87

Safety practices

Three safety practices were combined to assess this outcome (specific measures/practices are not described)

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Social support

Social Support subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.87

Reductions in child maltreatment
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure
Spanked child

Frequency of parent spanking child

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author
Threatened child

Frequency of parent threatening child

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author
Total violence

A composite score created from 7 items that reflect the level of violence in the home

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=0.82