Abstract
Background: This systematic literature review is stimulated by the perceived need of investigator, practice and policy stakeholders for a complete but parsimonious summary of key elements of programs that use home visitation for at-risk young families as the major delivery method.
Objectives: To describe the program components, practices, outcomes, and reliability of the evaluation approaches.
Methods: Computer and hand searches of literature were carried out. Reports of established programs, from the last five years, that describe home visitation services to atrisk families were included. A comprehensive data collection tool was used in the analysis of the findings.
Findings: Improvements over the previous five years were seen in the following areas: use of early intervention model, inclusion of comparison groups and adequate sampling.
Discussion: Challenges remain in development, targeting and reporting of home visitation practice, overall lack of impact, differential effects by program site, retention of participants and appropriate measurement.
Résumé
Contexte: Cette enquête bibliographique exhaustive est née d’un besoin perçu, chez les chercheurs, les praticiens et les décideurs, de disposer d’une synthèse complète des principaux éléments des programmes de visites à domicile dans les jeunes familles vulnérables.
Objectifs: Décrire les éléments de ces programmes, leurs pratiques, leurs résultats et la fiabilité des approches d’évaluation.
Méthode: Nous avons dépouillé à la main et par ordinateur la documentation des cinq dernières années sur les programmes établis comportant des services de visite à domicile dans des familles vulnérables. Pour l’analyse, nous avons employé un outil exhaustif de collecte de données.
Résultats: Nous avons constaté des améliorations par rapport aux cinq années précédentes en ce qui a trait à l’emploi du modèle d’intervention précoce, à l’inclusion de groupes témoins et à la pertinence de l’échantillonnage.
Interprétation: Il subsiste des lacunes dans l’élaboration, le ciblage et les rapports des visites à domicile et des défis à relever en ce qui concerne l’effet mitigé des programmes dans l’ensemble, les écarts constatés selon l’emplacement des programmes, la rétention des participants et les indicateurs employés.
References
- 1.Byrd ME. Questioning the quality of maternal caregiving during home visiting. Image: J Nursing Scholarship. 1997;31(1):27–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1999.tb00416.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ciliska D, Hayward S, Thomas H, Mitchell A, Dobbins M, Underwood J, et al. A systematic overview of the effectiveness of home visiting as a delivery strategy for public health nursing interventions. Can J Public Health. 1996;87(3):193–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Gomby DS. Understanding evaluations of home visitation programs. The Future of Children. 1999;9(1):27–43. doi: 10.2307/1602720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hiatt SW, Sampson D, Baird D. Paraprofessional home visitation: Conceptual and pragmatic considerations. J Community Psychol. 1997;25:77–92. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199701)25:1<77::AID-JCOP6>3.0.CO;2-#. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hodnett ED, Roberts I. The Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software; 2000. Home-based social support for socially disadvantaged mothers (Cochrane Review) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kearney MH, York R, Deatrick JA. Effects of home visits to vulnerable young families. J Nursing Scholarship. 2000;32(4):369–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2000.00369.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Roberts I, Kramer MS, Suissa S. Does home visiting prevent childhood injury? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br Med J. 1996;312:29–33. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7022.29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Olds D, Henderson Jr C, Chamberlin R, Tatlebaum R. Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics. 1986;78(1):65–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Olds D, Henderson CR, Jr., Kitzman H, Eckenrode RE, Cole RE, Tatelbaum C. Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses: Recent findings. The Future of Children. 1999;9(1):44–65. doi: 10.2307/1602721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Korfmacher J, O’Brien R, Hiatt S, Olds D. Am J Public Health. 1999. Differences in program implementation between nurses and paraprofessionals providing home visits during pregnancy and infancy: A randomized trial; pp. 1847–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cole KN, Dale PS, Mills PE, Jenkins JR. Interaction between early intervention curricula and student characteristics. Exceptional Child. 1993;16:17–28. doi: 10.1177/001440299306000103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Department of HealthHuman Services, Administration on Children, YouthFamilies US. National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development Program. Cambridge, MA: Department of Health and Human Services; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 13.St. Pierre RG, Layzer JI. Improving the life chances of children in poverty: Assumptions and what we have learned. Soc Pol Rep. 1998;12(4):1–25. doi: 10.1002/j.2379-3988.1998.tb00009.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Department of Education US. National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program. Washington, DC: Department of Education; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ramey CT, Ramey SL. Early intervention and early experience. Am Psychologist. 1998;53(2):109–20. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Wasik BA, Karweit NL. Off to a good start: Effects of birth to three interventions on early school success. In: Slavin E, Karweit NL, Wasik BA, editors. Prevention of Early School Failure: Research, Policy and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Yoshikawa H. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children. 1995;5(3):51–75. doi: 10.2307/1602367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gomby DS, Culross PL, Berhman RE. Home visiting: Recent program evaluations–analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children. 1999;9(1):4–26. doi: 10.2307/1602719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Byrd ME. A typology of the potential outcomes of maternal-child home visits: A literature analysis. Public Health Nurs. 1997;14(1):3–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.1997.tb00404.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Olds D, Kitzman H. Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. The Future of Children. 1993;3(3):53–92. doi: 10.2307/1602543. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Luthar SS, Cocchetti D, Becker B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development. 2000;71(3):543–62. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Shonkoff JP. Science, Policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development. 2000;71(1):181–87. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Tessario I, Campbell M, O’Meara C, Herrick H, Buescher P, Meyer R, et al. Am J Prev Med. 1997. State Health Department evaluation of North Carolina’s Maternal Outreach Worker Program; pp. 38–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wagner MM, Clayton SL. The Parents as Teachers Program: Results from two demonstrations. The Future of Children. 1999;9(1):91–115. doi: 10.2307/1602723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.St. Pierre RG, Layzer JI. Using home visits for multiple purposes: The Comprehensive Child Development Program. The Future of Children. 1999;9(1):134–51. doi: 10.2307/1602725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lutzker JR, Bigelow KM, Doctor RM, Kessler ML. Safety, Health care, and bonding within an ecobehavioral approach to treating and preventing child abuse and neglect. J Fam Violence. 1998;13(2):163–85. doi: 10.1023/A:1022893607387. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Baker AJL, Piotrowski CS, Brooks-Gunn J. The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) The Future of Children. 1999;9(1):116–33. doi: 10.2307/1602724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Duggan AK, Windham AM, McFarlane EC, Fuddy L, Rohde C, Buchbinder S, et al. Hawaii’s Healthy Start Program of home visiting for atrisk families: Evaluation of family identification, family engagement, and service delivery. Pediatrics. 2000;105(1):250–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Duggan AK, McFarlane EC, Windham AM, Rohde CA, Salkever DS, Fuddy L E, et al. valuation of Hawaii’s Healthy Start Program. The Future of Children. 1999;9(1):66–90. doi: 10.2307/1602722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Davenport DK. Annual evaluation Healthy Families Program. Report to the Arizona Legislature. Report No. 00-1. 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Daro DA, Harding KA. Healthy Families America: Using research to enhance practice. The Future of Children. 1999;9(1):152–76. doi: 10.2307/1602726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Elnitsky S, Hornick JR, Bertrand LD, Wagner H, Hanson PG, Bradford B. Report prepared for the National Crime Prevention Centre. 2000. Healthy Families: Process analysis of selected Canadian programs. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Evaluation of the Healthy Families Program . Final report. Edmonton, AB: CA MacDonald & Associates; 2000. [Google Scholar]