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
| Screening decision | Screening conclusion | HomVEE procedures and standards version |
|---|---|---|
| Passes screens | Eligible for review | Version 1 |
| Rating | Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Compromised randomization | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measure(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Randomized controlled trial | Low | Established on race/ethnicity, SES, and baseline measures of the outcomes | None | None | Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021 |
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 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. |
| Subgroups examined |
This field lists subgroups examined in the manuscript (even if they were not replicated in other samples and not reported on the summary page for this model’s report). Subgroups are not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
| 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. |
| Peer reviewed | Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: None found. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE beginning with the 2014 review.
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significanceStatistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations. |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| 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 |
| 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 | 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
