Skip to main content
. 2012 Mar 19;90(1):47–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00655.x

TABLE 4.

Key Data Extraction: Predominant Theory, Population, Stated Child Abuse Objective, Program Components, Match, Outcomes, and Success

Matchf
Program, Location (key reference)a Target Populationb Core Theoryc Aim: Reduce Child Abuse (yes/no)d Program Componentse Theory and Components Theory and Population Full/Partial/No Match Primary Outcomeg Other Outcomesh Success (yes/no)i Potential for Biasj
Very High Risk (e.g., illicit drug use)/Current Abuse Populations
1. Special Families Care Project, MN (Christensen, Schommer, and Velasquez 1984) 5 5 Yes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Yes Yes Full *Abuse*Neglect*Out-of-home placement /foster care Yes 1
2. Project 12-Ways, IL (Lutzker and Rice 1984) 5 6 Yes 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 Yes Yes Full *Abuse or neglect incidents*Substantiated instance of abuse or neglect Yes 2
4. Home visiting, Perth, Australia (Bartu et al. 2006) 4 (illicit drug use) 2 No 1, 2, 5 Yes No No NA †Drug use increased No 1
5. Home visiting, Baltimore (Nair et al. 2003; Schuler et al. 2000) 4 (drug use) 4 No 1, 2, 5, 6 No No No NA †Narcotic, alcohol, or marijuana use †Maternal responsiveness or infant warmth No 0
6. Healthy Families America (HFA), Healthy Families New York (DuMont et al. 2008) 3–5 4, 5, 6 Yes 1, 2, 3, 5 No Yes No Year 2:†Composite score serious abuse or neglect, prevalence, or frequency†Frequency of substantiated CPS reports No 0
31. Nurse Visiting, Baltimore (Black et al. 1994) 4, 5 (prenatal illicit drug use) 6 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Yes Yes Full *CAPI *Drug free*Overall home score†PSI Yes 0
High to very high risk target population
3. Home visiting, Denver (Gray et al. 1977) 3–5 4 Yes 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 Yes Part Partial *Hospital attendance for injuries due to abnormal parenting practices Yes 2
7. Home visiting, Queensland, Australia (Armstrong et al. 1999) 3–5 4 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Yes Part Partial *CAPI (baseline to 7 months)*Self-reported fewer injuries and bruises†Use of health services *Improvement in overall PD score (PSI)*HOME (all subscales and total HOME score) Yes 0
8. Child Parent Enrichment Project, Contra Costa County, CA (Barth 1991) 3–5 (most very high risk) 6 Yes 1, 2, 3, 5 No Yes No †Unsubstantiated reports†CAPI†Illness/ED visits No 1
9. Community Infant Project, Boulder, CO (Huxley and Warner 1993) 3–5 3 Yes 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 Yes Part Partial *Emergency room use*Confirmed child abuse episode†Child abuse or neglect report *HOME: total HOME score, + some subscores†HOME other subscales Yes 2
10. Early Intervention Program, San Bernardino, CA (Koniak-Griffin et al. 2002) 3–5 3 Yes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 Yes Part Partial *Total days hospitalization*Number of episodes of hospitalization†Total number of ED visits*Never used ED *Next conception†Time to repeat pregnancy*Marijuana use†Alcohol and tobacco†HOME scores Yes 1
11. Hawaii Healthy Start Program, HI (Duggan et al. 1999) 3–5 1, 3, 4 Yes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 Yes Part Partial †Frequent and severe self-reported abuse behaviors†Maternal neglect†Substantiated CPS report rates†Hospitalizations†Mother relinquish primary caregiver †HOME: acceptance of child†PC-CTS†RRB No 1
12. Healthy Families America (HFA), Healthy Families Alaska (Gessner 2008)k 3–4 3, 5 Yes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 No Yes No HFA versus high risk matched control†CPS referral†Substantiated neglect and abuse No 2
32. (HFA), Healthy Families Alaska (Duggan et al. 2007) RCTk 3–4 3, 5 Yes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 No Yes No †CPS Reports and Neglect†Hospitalization and ED visits†Birth mother relinquished her role *Fewer extremely poor total HOME scores†Group scores for HOME subscale†Substance abuse†Total PSI scores No 0
13. Home visiting, Western Australia (Quinlivan, Box, and Evans 2003) 3–5 1, 2, 3 Yes 1, 2, 3, 5 Yes Part Partial *Neonatal adverse outcome (deaths, injury, non-voluntary foster care placement) Yes 0
14. Early Start, New Zealand (Fergusson et al. 2005) 3–5 1, 3 Yes 1, 2, 3, 6 Yes Part Partial *Severe physical assault†Rates of agency contact for child abuse and neglect*Fewer hospital attendances for injury *Nonpunitive parenting†Next pregnancy†Alcohol/substance use†Life stresses, family functioning Yes 1
15. Family Partnership Model, two counties in the UK (Barlow et al. 2007) 3–5 (65% mental health, 34% DV) 3 Yes 1 No Part No †Hospitalization at 6 months†Child protection register or care proceedings†Children removed from home †HOME*(MCI–CARE Index) sensitive to babies, who were more cooperative No 0
16a Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) Nurse home-visiting, Denver (Olds 2002) 2–5 (low income +/− DV) 1, 2, 4 No 1, 2, 5 Yes Yes Partial *Any domestic violence *Timing next births†Marijuana†Alcohol use†HOME score Yes 1
16b. (NFP) Paraprofessional home visiting, Denver (Olds 2002) 2–5 1, 2, 4 No 1, 2, 5 Yes Yes Partial †Any domestic violence †Subsequent pregnancies and births†Marijuana/alcohol use†HOME score*More sensitive and responsive interaction No 1
17. Parenting on Edge, GA (Mulsow and Murray 1996) 3–4 6 Yes 1, 2 No Yes No †Incidence of abuse or neglect reports†N reports per mother No 2
18. Linkages for Prevention Project, Durham, NC (Margolis et al. 2001) 3–4 6 No 1, 2, 5 No Yes No †Substantiated neglect†Substantiated cases of abuse†ED or hospitalized †Drug or alcohol use*3/5 safety measures child home environment*HOME scale No 2
33. Addition of intensive home visiting to (CAMP), Denver (Stevens-Simon, Nelligan, and Kelly 2001) 4, 5 4 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Yes Part Partial †All maltreatment, (physical abuse, neglect, abandonment) †Repeat pregnancy rate No 1
34. Home visiting, Philadelphia, (Marcenko and Spence 1994) 3–5 (high-risk for psychosocial reasons) 3 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Yes Part Partial †Placed in out-of-home care †Home Inventory No 1
Moderate-risk target population
19. Child and Youth Program Module, Baltimore (Hardy and Streett 1989) 2, 3 1 Yes 1, 2, 5 Yes Part Partial *Child abuse and neglect*Inpatient care*Clinic or ED visit for fall or head injury Yes 1
20. (NFP), Olds Nurse Family partnership, Memphis (Kitzman et al. 1997) 3 6 No 1, 5, 6, 7 Yes Yes Partial First 2 years:*Injuries and ingestions†ED visits†Hospitalizations*Less hospitalization for injury and ingestionBirth to age 9:*Death First 2 years:*Second pregnancy and subsequent live births*HOME scoresBirth to age 9:*Subsequent births*Substance use Yes 1
26a. (NFP), Olds Nurse Family Partnership, pre- and postnatal, Elmira, NY (Olds et al. 1997) 2–3 1, 2, 3 Yes 1, 2, 5 Yes Yes Yes 25 to 50 months:†New cases child abuse and neglect*Injuries and ingestions*ED visits†Hospitalizations15 years:*Child abuse and neglect substantiations 25 to 50 months:†HOME total score15 years:†Next pregnancy and birth†Substance use Yes 0
26b. (NFP) Olds Nurse Family Partnership, prenatal, Elmira, NY (Olds et al. 1997) 2–3 1, 2, 3 Yes 1, 2, 5 Yes Yes Yes 25 to 50 months:†New child abuse and neglect cases*Injuries and ingestions*ED visits†Hospitalizations15 years:*Child abuse and neglect substantiations 25 to 50 months:†HOME total score15 years:†Next pregnancy and births†Substance use Yes 0
21. Three Generation Study, Baltimore (Black et al. 2006) 3 3 No 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 Yes Yes Partial NA *Extend time to second birth Yes 0
22. Parent Training by CETA aide, Miami (Field et al. 1982) 3 4 No 1, 3 Yes Yes Partial NA *Repeat pregnancy Yes 1
23. Comprehensive Child Development Program, USA (St. Pierre and Layzer 1999) 2–3 6 No 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Yes Yes Partial NA †HOME score†PCI No 2
24. Home visiting, CO (Dawson, van Doorninck, and Robinson 1989) 2–3 3 No 1, 2, 5, 7 Yes Yes Partial †Child abuse and neglect reports†Accidents or hospitalization †Subsequent childbearing No 2
25a. Parents as Teachers (PAT) Program—Teens Combined = basic + case management, CA (Wagner and Clayton 1999) 2–3 1, 6 Yes 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 Yes Yes Yes *Opened cases of child abuse or neglect†Child abuse†Child treated for injury †Total HOME score Yes 1
25b. Parents as Teachers (PAT) Program – basic program, CA (Wagner and Clayton 1999) 2–3 1 No 1, 2, 3, 5 Yes Yes Partial †Treated for injury†ED visits †Total HOME score No 1
25c. Parents as Teachers (PAT) Program, Teen PAT (basic teenage program), CA (Wagner and Clayton 1999) 2–3 (teenage parents) 1 No 1, 2, 3, 5 Yes Yes Partial †Opened cases of child abuse or neglect†Child abuse†Child treated for injury †Total HOME score No 1
27. Social Support and Family Health Study, London (Wiggins et al. 2004) 2–3 3 No 1, 2 Yes Yes Partial †injuries requiring medical attention †maternal smoking No 1
28. Home visiting, Quebec, Canada (Infante-Rivard et al. 1989) 2–3 1 No 1, 4 Yes Part No †Hospitalization †Total HOME score‡and *HOME score components No 1
29a. Postnatal home visiting, Montreal (Larson 1980) 2, 3 4 No 1, 2, 4 Yes Yes Partial *Accident rate @ 12 months†Accident rate @ 6 and 18 months†Rate of ED visits over 18 months †HOME No 2
29b. Pre and postnatal visiting, Montreal (Larson 1980) 2, 3 4 No 1, 2, 4 Yes Yes Partial *Accident rate @ 6 months*Accident rate @ 12months†Accident rate @ 18months†Rate of ED visits over 18 months *HOME score Yes 2
35. REACH-Futures program, Chicago (Norr et al. 2003) 3 2, 6 No 1 No Yes No †Health problem variables†Formal or informal foster care †Repeat pregnancy†HOME: parenting attitudes*HOME: appropriate play materials†Other HOME subscales No 1
36. New Mexico and Arizona HFA (Barlow et al. 2006) 2–3 (American Indian adolescents) 2 No 1 No Yes No NA †Lower drug use but no difference No 1
37a. Early Head Start, home-based only, 17 sites across USA (Love et al. 2005) 2–3 1, 2 No 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 Yes Yes Partial NA *HOME score*PCI Yes 0
37b. Early Head Start, mixed (home- + center-based), 17 sites across USA (Love et al. 2005) 2–3 1, 2 No 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 Yes Yes Partial NA *HOME score†PCI Yes 0
General population + low to medium risk
30. Home visiting, Greensboro, NC (Siegel et al. 1980) 1–3 4 Yes 1, 2, 5, 9 No Partial No †Reports of abuse and neglect†Hospitalization and ED visits †MII: three attachment measures No 2
38. Healthy Steps for Young Children Program (HS),k Pacific Northwest (USA and Canada) (Johnston et al. 2006) 1 5 No 1, 2 No No No †Exposure to significant physical domestic violence †Use of illicit drugs†Smoking*Injury control behaviors No 2
39. Home visiting, Damascus, Syria (Bashour et al. 2008) 1 2 No 1, 2, 5, 6 Yes Yes Partial †Seeking medical treatment No 0
40. Cognitive extension of the Healthy Start Program, Santa Barbara, CA (Bugental and Schwartz 2009) 1, 2 (children born at medical risk) 4 Yes 1, 4, 5, 6 Yes Part Partial *Injury†Physical abuse *CTS PC: corporal punishment*Home safety Yes 1
41. Home visiting,Yamanashi, Japan (Cheng et al. 2007) 1 4 No 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Yes No No NA PIRGAS*Relationship group†adapted relationship group No 1
42. Modified Mother-Infant Transaction Program (MITP), Norway (Kaaresen et al. 2006) 2, 3 (birth weight below 2000g) 4 No 1, 2, 3 Yes Yes Partial NA PSI:*Total stress 6, 12 months, mother; 12 months, father*Child domain, 6 months, mother; 12 months, father*Parent domain, 6 months, mother; 12 months father Yes 0
43. REST, USA (Keefe et al. 2006) 1, 2 (infants with. irritability or colic) 3, 2 No 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Yes Yes Partial NA *PSI total score @ 8 weeks*P-CDI subscale†Other two subscales: parental distress and difficult child Yes 1
44. Home visiting, Ontario, Canada (Steel O’Connor et al. 2003) 1 2 No 2, 5 Yes Yes Partial †Health problems†Number of ED visits†Number of hospital admissions No 2

Notes:aDefined in text.

b

Target population defined in table 2.

c

Core theory defined in table 3.

d

Aim as stated in the original manuscripts reporting on each program.

e

Components defined in table 3.

f

Match defined in text in Methods.

g

Primary outcome is a direct or surrogate child abuse outcome. The outcome measure symbols are as follows:

*

: Intervention group statistically significantly better than control group.

†: No statistically significant difference between intervention and control group.

‡: Intervention group statistically significantly worse than control group.

h

Other outcomes: Risk factors for child abuse and neglect. Outcome symbols same as in note g.

i

Success defined in text, in Methods.

j

Potential for bias (see under Methods Quality Assessment list of potentials for bias).

0 = Study with zero or one potentials for bias (classified as good quality).

1 = Study with two potentials for bias (classified as adequate quality).

2 = Study with three + potentials for bias (classified as poor quality).

k

Both programs 12 and 32 are Healthy Families Alaska but evaluated through different methods, one through data linkage and matched design, and the other an RCT, covering somewhat different populations. Program 38, Healthy Steps, was the only program whose program components other than home visiting could play a larger role than the home visits (of which there were only three).

NA: No direct child maltreatment outcomes reported.

CAPI: Child Abuse Potential Inventory.

HOME: The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment inventory.

PSI: Parenting Stress Index.

DV: Domestic Violence.

MCI-CARE: Maternal Child Interaction-CARE Index.

RRB: Rapid Repeat Births.

PIRGAS: Parent-Infant Relationship Global Assessment Scale.

MII: Mother-Infant Interaction.

PCI: Parent Child Interaction Score.

CTS-PC: Parent Child Conflict Tactics Scale.