4
Manuscripts
Released in 1979 through 2011
4
Manuscripts
Impact studies rated high or moderate quality
Skip to: Effectiveness Implementation
This model meets criteria established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for an evidence-based home visiting model.
Does not meet criteria for an evidence-based home visiting model for Indigenous peoples and communities.
For more information about manuscripts, search the research database.
For more information on the criteria used to rate research, please see details of HomVEEʼs methods and standards.
4
Manuscripts
Released in 1979 through 2011
4
Manuscripts
Eligible for review
4
Manuscripts
Impact studies rated high or moderate quality
To see details on each manuscript HomVEE reviewed in well-designed research, click on the manuscript counts in the table.
Favorable:
A finding showing a statistically significant impact on an outcome measure in a direction that is beneficial for children and parents.
No effect:
Findings are not statistically significant.
Unfavorable:
A finding showing a statistically significant impact on an outcome measure in a direction that may indicate potential harm to children and/or parents.
| Outcomes | Manuscripts | Favorable Findings | No Effects Findings | Unfavorable Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child development and school readiness | Not measured | - | - | - |
| Child health | View 3 Manuscripts | 8 | 10 | 0 |
| Family economic self-sufficiency | View 1 Manuscript | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Linkages and referrals | Not measured | - | - | - |
| Maternal health | View 4 Manuscripts | 0 | 19 | 1 |
| Positive parenting practices | View 3 Manuscripts | 0 | 9 | 0 |
| Reductions in child maltreatment | Not measured | - | - | - |
| Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime | Not measured | - | - | - |
Well-designed impact studies about this model included participants with the following characteristics:
Race/Ethnicity
Maternal Education
Well-designed impact studies about this model were conducted in the following locations:
In this section:
Support Availability
Service Delivery
Model services, adaptions and enhancements, model intensity and length.
Highlights
EIP was developed by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Nursing. The model developer and director provided implementation support. EIP was initially implemented as a collaborative demonstration project between the developer and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, Division of Community Health Services.
No information was available about technical assistance.
Nurse home visitors delivered EIP services using a case management approach. During home visits, nurse home visitors covered five main content areas: (1) health, (2) sexuality and family planning, (3) maternal role, (4) life skills, and (5) social support.
Prenatal visits focused on the use of prenatal health care, preparation for childbirth, and self-care during pregnancy. In addition, nurse home visitors conducted four classes focusing on the transition to motherhood, fetal development, parent-child communication, and maternal health.
During the postpartum visits, nurse home visitors provided mothers with information on family planning; infant care and development; well-baby health care; education attainment; substance use; mental health issues, such as handling emotions; and referrals for mental health counseling, family planning, and child care. For example, EIP addressed the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (such as HIV/AIDs), contraceptive options, school readiness preparations (such as reading to children), and prevention of lead poisoning. Nurse home visitors also helped mothers improve communication skills and learn how to assess their infants’ needs, respond to infant distress, and interact reciprocally with their infants. To help mothers improve their infant interaction and nurturing skills, nurse home visitors used videotherapy, in which they videotaped a mother interacting with her infant and subsequently solicited the mother’s opinion about the quality of the interaction.
Nurse home visitors implemented all aspects of the model using standardized protocols to ensure uniformity. The EIP protocols were organized based on the nursing process and covered each of five content areas. Examples of worksheets used to facilitate learning and behavior change included “Psychological Aspects of Appetite and Food,” “Danger Signals During Pregnancy,” “Prenatal Rest, Exercise, and Activity,” and “I Want to Change.” Another worksheet (called “What Do I Do?”) was used when the mother needed help solving a problem. Protocols incorporated several teaching techniques, such as examining educational and vocational goals and options, completing problem-solving worksheets, and letter writing.
No information was available about model adaptations or enhancements.
Public health nurses from local health departments or nurses from other health service agencies conducted home visits and classes. A supervisor guided and monitored their implementation. In the initial demonstration of EIP, nurse home visitors were employed by the county health department and contracted by the university to deliver EIP services, and the model also employed recruiters.
No information was available on the staff education and experience requirements. In the initial demonstration of EIP, nurse home visitors had, on average, five years of experience with the county health department, a bachelor’s degree in nursing, and a public health nursing certificate from the state of California.
No information was available on supervision requirements.
This model required that the nurse home visitors participate in pre-service training. EIP required on-site staff training from the model developer and director. For the demonstration, pre-service training for nurse home visitors was approximately 60 hours.
No information was available on ongoing professional development requirements.
EIP was originally implemented collaboratively by the UCLA School of Nursing and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, Division of Community Health Services. The model could have been administered by other health service agencies.
No information was available about the fidelity guidelines that implementing programs or nurse home visitors were required to meet.
HomVEE requests input and feedback from the model developers on their profiles. The information in this implementation profile reflects feedback, if provided, from this model’s developer as of the above date. HomVEE reserves the right to edit the profile for clarity and consistency. The description of the implementation of the model(s) here may differ from how the model(s) was implemented in the manuscripts reviewed to determine this model’s evidence of effectiveness. Model developers are encouraged to notify HomVEE of any changes to their contact information on this page.