Skip to main content
NCBI home page
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1999 Dec;89(12):1847–1851. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.12.1847

Differences in program implementation between nurses and paraprofessionals providing home visits during pregnancy and infancy: a randomized trial.

J Korfmacher 1, R O'Brien 1, S Hiatt 1, D Olds 1
PMCID: PMC1509014  PMID: 10589314

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study examined differences between nurses and paraprofessionals in implementation of a home visiting program for low-income, first-time parents during pregnancy and the first 2 years of the child's life. METHODS: Mothers were randomly assigned to either a nurse-visited (n = 236) or a paraprofessional-visited (n = 244) condition. Nurse- and paraprofessional-visited families were compared on number and length of visits, topics covered, number of program dropouts, and relationship with home visitor. RESULTS: On average, nurses completed more visits than paraprofessionals (28 vs 23; P < .001) and spent a greater proportion of time on physical health issues during pregnancy (38% vs 27%; P < .001) and on parenting issues during infancy (46% vs 32%; P < .001). Paraprofessionals conducted visits that lasted longer and spent a greater proportion of time on environmental health and safety issues (15% vs 7% pregnancy; 15% vs 8% infancy; P < .001). While home visitors were viewed equally positively by mothers, nurses had fewer dropouts than did paraprofessionals (38% vs 48%; P = .04). More paraprofessional-visited families than nurse-visited families experienced staff turnover. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and paraprofessionals, even when using the same model, provide home visiting services in different ways.

Full text

PDF
1847

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Durlak J. A. Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and professional helpers. Psychol Bull. 1979 Jan;86(1):80–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hattie J. A., Sharpley C. F., Rogers H. J. Comparative effectiveness of professional and paraprofessional helpers. Psychol Bull. 1984 May;95(3):534–541. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kitzman H., Olds D. L., Henderson C. R., Jr, Hanks C., Cole R., Tatelbaum R., McConnochie K. M., Sidora K., Luckey D. W., Shaver D. Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1997 Aug 27;278(8):644–652. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Olds D. L., Henderson C. R., Jr, Chamberlin R., Tatelbaum R. Preventing child abuse and neglect: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics. 1986 Jul;78(1):65–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Olds D. L., Henderson C. R., Jr, Tatelbaum R., Chamberlin R. Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics. 1986 Jan;77(1):16–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Olds D. L., Henderson C. R., Jr, Tatelbaum R., Chamberlin R. Improving the life-course development of socially disadvantaged mothers: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Am J Public Health. 1988 Nov;78(11):1436–1445. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.11.1436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Powell C., Grantham-McGregor S. Home visiting of varying frequency and child development. Pediatrics. 1989 Jul;84(1):157–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES