TABLE 2.
Non–Face-to-Face Formats
| First author, year | Study design | Major findings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paradis, 201127 | RCT | |||||
| Enrolled: N = 137 families (70 intervention; 67 control) | No differences in scores on scales for parent competence, self-efficacy, or knowledge of infant development. | |||||
| Intervention: 15-min educational DVD for anticipatory guidance at newborn visit | Parents in control group had 2.6 times greater odds of having 1 additional office visits between the newborn and 2-mo visits (adjusted odds ratio 2.6, 95% CI: 1.3–5.5) | |||||
| Child age: ≤1–2 mo | ||||||
| Parent survey and chart review | ||||||
| Outcomes included: | ||||||
| • Parent knowledge of infant development | ||||||
| • Self-efficacy with infant care skills | ||||||
| • Problem-solving competence | ||||||
| Jadad score: 3 | ||||||
| Bergman, 200925 | Observational study | Outcomes | E-visit | E-visit + in-person visit | Tailored visit | |
| Families: N = 78 | Parent satisfaction with WCC visit | 80% | 84% | 80% | ||
| • E-visit only (n = 10) | Parent perception that the model of care: | |||||
| • E-visit with brief provider visit (n = 25) | ||||||
| • Extended CSHCN visit (n = 15) | ||||||
| Tailored visit (n = 28)a | Helped them to prepare for visit | N/A | 92% | 94% | ||
| Providers: N = 7 | ||||||
| Intervention: model for WCC that includes 3 visit types | Helped to them identify important topics | 70% | 84% | 80% | ||
| Parent and provider phone surveys | Improved efficiency of WCC visit | 90% | 88% | 80% | ||
| Outcomes included | ||||||
| • Feasibility of intervention | ||||||
| • Acceptance of intervention | ||||||
| Downs & Black score (modified): 6 | ||||||
| Christakis, 200628 | RCT | Discussion of prevention topics | ||||
| Enrolled: N = 887 families | • All intervention groups vs control: IRR (CI) 1.07 (1.01–1.14) | |||||
| Web content + provider notification (n = 210) | • Content + notification group vs control: IRR 1.09 (1.00–1.20) | |||||
| Web content only (n = 238) | Implementation of prevention topics | |||||
| Provider notification only (n = 211) | • All intervention groups vs control: IRR 1.04 (1.01–1.06) | |||||
| Control group (n = 228) | • Content + notification group vs control: IRR 1.07 (1.03–1.11) | |||||
| Intervention: tailored, evidence-based web site for prevention topics | ||||||
| Child age: 0–11 y | ||||||
| Parent interview and home visit validation of practices | ||||||
| Outcomes included | ||||||
| • Number of prevention topics discussed | ||||||
| • Number of prevention practices adopted | ||||||
| Jadad score: 3 | ||||||
| Sanghavi, 200526 | Controlled trial | Parent knowledge of AG topics | Intervention (N = 49) | Control (N = 52) | P value | |
| N = 101 families (49 intervention; 52 control) | Perfect score or only 1 question wrong | 35% | 2% | <.001 | ||
| Intervention: interactive, self-guided educational kiosk for anticipatory guidance | Average % of questions correct | 81% | 61% | .01 | ||
| Child age: 6 wk and 4 mo | ||||||
| Parent questionnaire | ||||||
| Outcome: parent knowledge of AG topics | ||||||
| Downs & Black score (modified): 12 | ||||||
| Kempe, 199936 | Observational study | Audiotaped survey of users | ||||
| N = 561 audiotaped survey users | PAL made a call to physician unnecessary: 69% | |||||
| PAL made a visit to physician unnecessary: 70% | ||||||
| N = 137 telephone survey users/nonusers (44 users; 93 nonusers) | PAL answered their question: 87% | |||||
| Would use PAL again: 98% | ||||||
| Intervention: Parent Advice Line (PAL), collection of 278 health-related messages accessible by phone | Telephone survey of random sample of users (n = 44) | |||||
| Satisfaction with PAL: 86% | ||||||
| Child age: <12 y | ||||||
| Audiotaped survey and telephone survey | ||||||
| Outcomes included | ||||||
| • Utilization of PAL | ||||||
| • User satisfaction | ||||||
| • Effect on health-seeking behavior | ||||||
| Downs & Black score (modified): 8 | ||||||
a
All participants completed the web-based preassessment tool; participants in the tailored visit group had a regular visit tailored to their responses. AG, anticipatory guidance.