Intervention Nurses Start Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories (INSIGHT) Meets HHS Criteria

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2022

Effects shown in research

Child health

Findings rated high

Intervention Nurses Start Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories (INSIGHT)
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Accelerated weight gain

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

1 year old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

253 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.32 Unadjusted proportion = 0.34 Difference = -0.02 HomVEE calculated = -0.05

Not statistically significant, p= 0.97

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Accelerated weight gain

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

16 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

269 infants Unadjusted proportion = 0.09 Unadjusted proportion = 0.12 Difference = -0.03 HomVEE calculated = -0.19

Not statistically significant, p= 0.44

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

BMI

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

1 year old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

253 children Unadjusted mean = 17.00 Unadjusted mean = 17.40 Mean difference = -0.40 HomVEE calculated = -0.28

Statistically significant, p = 0.02

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

BMI

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

16 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

269 children Unadjusted mean = 16.40 Unadjusted mean = 16.80 Mean difference = -0.40 HomVEE calculated = -0.27

Statistically significant, p = 0.03

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

BMI

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

2 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

243 children Unadjusted mean = 16.50 Unadjusted mean = 16.80 Mean difference = -0.30 HomVEE calculated = -0.21

Not statistically significant, p = 0.10

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

BMI

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

28 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

262 children Unadjusted mean = 17.10 Unadjusted mean = 17.70 Mean difference = -0.60 HomVEE calculated = -0.39

Statistically significant, p <.01

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

BMI

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

232 children Unadjusted mean = 15.80 Unadjusted mean = 16.20 Mean difference = -0.40 HomVEE calculated = -0.32

Statistically significant, p = 0.02

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

BMI

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

4 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

279 children Unadjusted mean = 13.80 Unadjusted mean = 14.30 Mean difference = -0.50 HomVEE calculated = -0.43

Statistically significant, p <.01

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

BMI

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

40 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

259 children Unadjusted mean = 17.30 Unadjusted mean = 17.80 Mean difference = -0.50 HomVEE calculated = -0.33

Statistically significant, p = 0.01

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

BMI (in standardized units)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

2 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

243 children Unadjusted mean = -0.09 Unadjusted mean = 0.11 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.21

Not statistically significant, p= 0.10

Author-reported effect size was calculated as mean difference between standardized scores.

BMI (in standardized units)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

232 children Unadjusted mean = -0.13 Unadjusted mean = 0.15 Mean difference = -0.28 Study reported = -0.28

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Author-reported effect size was calculated as mean difference between standardized scores.

BMI percentile

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

2 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

243 children Unadjusted mean = 48.10 Unadjusted mean = 52.40 Mean difference = -4.30 HomVEE calculated = -0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.26

BMI percentile

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

232 children Unadjusted mean = 46.90 Unadjusted mean = 53.80 Mean difference = -6.90 HomVEE calculated = -0.24

Not statistically significant, p= 0.07

Conditional weight gain

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

28 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

262 children Unadjusted mean = -0.18 Unadjusted mean = 0.18 Mean difference = -0.36 Not available

Statistically significant, p <.01

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Downward crossing of 2 major percentile lines for height and weight

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

279 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.02 Unadjusted proportion = 0.04 Difference = -0.01 HomVEE calculated = -0.32

Not statistically significant, p = 0.47

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Percent obese

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

2 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

243 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.01 Unadjusted proportion = 0.08 Difference = -0.08 HomVEE calculated = -1.47

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Percent obese

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

232 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.03 Unadjusted proportion = 0.08 Difference = -0.05 HomVEE calculated = -0.70

Not statistically significant, p= 0.08

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Percent overweight

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

2 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

243 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.11 Unadjusted proportion = 0.21 Difference = -0.09 HomVEE calculated = -0.43

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Percent overweight

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

232 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.11 Unadjusted proportion = 0.20 Difference = -0.09 HomVEE calculated = -0.41

Not statistically significant, p= 0.07

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Weight-for-age below 5th percentile

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 years old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

279 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.08 Unadjusted proportion = 0.04 Difference = 0.04 HomVEE calculated = 0.39

Not statistically significant, p = 0.22

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Intervention Nurses Start Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories (INSIGHT)
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Daytime sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

1 year old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

245 infants Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p >.05

Daytime sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

16 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

262 infants Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p >.05

Daytime sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

40 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

251 infants Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p >.05

Daytime sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

8 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

252 infants Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p >.05

Overnight sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

1 year old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

245 infants Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p >.05

Overnight sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

16 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

262 infants Unadjusted mean = 582.10 Unadjusted mean = 557.20 Difference = 24.90 HomVEE calculated = 0.31

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Overnight sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

40 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

251 infants Unadjusted mean = 624.60 Unadjusted mean = 602.90 Difference = 21.70 HomVEE calculated = 0.30

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Overnight sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

8 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

252 infants Unadjusted mean = 532.30 Unadjusted mean = 497.20 Difference = 35.10 HomVEE calculated = 0.42

Statistically significant, p <.01

Sleep 12 to 14 hours per day

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

1 year old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

245 infants Not reported Not reported Odds ratio = 1.89 HomVEE calculated = 0.38

Not statistically significant, p >.05

Submitted by barbara on

HomVEE calculated the effect size based on the study-reported odds ratio.

Total daily sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

16 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

262 infants Unadjusted mean = 808.80 Unadjusted mean = 785.30 Difference = 23.50 HomVEE calculated = 0.21

Not statistically significant, p= 0.08

Total daily sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

40 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

251 infants Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p >.05

Total daily sleep duration (minutes)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

8 weeks old

INSIGHT vs. comparison, Pennsylvania 2012-2014, full sample

248 infants Unadjusted mean = 866.30 Unadjusted mean = 839.20 Difference = 27.10 HomVEE calculated = 0.20

Not statistically significant, p= 0.10

View Revisions