Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Options

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2021

Effects shown in research

Maternal health

Findings rated high

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Maternal GAD-7 anxiety severity score

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Unadjusted mean = 5.28 Unadjusted mean = 6.45 Difference = -1.17 Study reported = -0.19

Not statistically significant, p= 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Unadjusted mean.

Maternal PHQ-9 depression severity score

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Unadjusted mean = 5.31 Unadjusted mean = 6.29 Difference = -0.98 Study reported = -0.18

Not statistically significant, p= 0.09

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Unadjusted mean.

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Parenting stress: competence - Parent-Child Competence Scale from the Parenting Stress Index-3 (PSI-3)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 months post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

215 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 19.73 Unadjusted mean = 19.95 Mean difference = -0.22 Study reported = -0.03

Not statistically significant, p = 0.80

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Parenting stress: competence - Parent-Child Competence Scale from the Parenting Stress Index-3 (PSI-3)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

211 parent/child dyads Unadjusted proportion = 19.80 Unadjusted proportion = 19.33 Mean difference = 0.47 Study reported = 0.07

Not statistically significant, p = 0.59

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Parenting stress: dysfunctional interaction - Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Scale from Parenting Stress Index (PSI) short form

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 months post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

215 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 18.48 Unadjusted mean = 18.80 Mean difference = -0.32 Study reported = -0.06

Not statistically significant, p = 0.67

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Parenting stress: dysfunctional interaction - Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Scale from Parenting Stress Index (PSI) short form

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

211 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 21.26 Unadjusted mean = 21.70 Mean difference = -0.44 Study reported = -0.09

Not statistically significant, p = 0.53

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Stress-Difficult Child: Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF, Difficult Child subscale, 12 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

175 caregivers Adjusted mean = 10.45 Adjusted mean = 9.50 Mean difference = 0.95 Study reported = -0.22

Not statistically significant, p= 0.22

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Stress-Difficult Child: Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF, Difficult Child subscale, 12 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

175 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p= >0.10

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Stress-Dysfunctional Interaction: Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF, Parent-Child Dysfunction subscale, 11 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

175 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p= >0.10

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Stress-Dysfunctional Interaction: Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF, Parent-Child Dysfunction subscale, 11 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

175 caregivers Adjusted mean = 6.13 Adjusted mean = 5.65 Mean difference = 0.48 Study reported = -0.13

Not statistically significant, p= 0.48

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

View Revisions