Doyle, O., McGlanaghy, E., O'Farrelly, C., & Tremblay, R. E. (2016). Can targeted intervention mitigate early emotional and behavioral problems?: Generating robust evidence within randomized controlled trials. Plos One, 11(6), Article e0156397.
| Screening decision | Screening conclusion | HomVEE procedures and standards version |
|---|---|---|
| Passes screens | Eligible for review | Version 2 |
| Rating | Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Compromised randomization | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measure(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Randomized controlled trial | Low | Not assessed for randomized controlled trials with low attrition |
No | No |
Yes |
Information on the study’s inverse–probability-weighting procedure and the findings’ unadjusted standard deviations were based on correspondence with the author.
| Study participants | Study participants were pregnant women recruited in a maternity hospital or in the community. A total of 233 pregnant women were randomly assigned to either the Preparing for Life—Home Visiting group that received home visiting services (“high PFL”; 115 participants) or the comparison condition that did not receive home visiting services (“low PFL”; 118 participants). The study included a total of 164 participants, 81 in the high PFL group and 83 in the low PFL comparison group. Outcomes were measured when the children in the sample were 24 months old. At intake, the average age of the mothers was 25. The percentage of mothers identifying as Irish was 96 percent, and 4 percent identified as Irish Traveller. About half of the women were first-time mothers. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study took place in North Dublin, Ireland. |
| Intervention services | Preparing for Life—Home Visiting provided home visits that lasted 30 minutes to two hours during the mother’s pregnancy and until the child started school at age 5. The majority of participants received visits every two weeks, though some participants received services monthly. The home visitor was a trained Preparing for Life mentor. The mentor provided information by using tip sheets and worked with participants to resolve issues around the child’s development, including the child’s prebirth development, nutrition, rest and routine, and cognitive and social development. The mentor also addressed the mother and her supports. Participants had access to baby massage sessions until the child was 10 months old. Participants also received packages of materials, including home safety items (corner guards, angle latches, heat-sensitive spoons, and baby gym/play mats) and toys (puzzles, activity toys, and bricks), worth about 100 Euros per package. |
| Comparison conditions | Participants in the low PFL (comparison) group did not have access to the home visiting services or tip sheets. The comparison group did, however, receive some of the same resources made available to the high PFL (intervention) group, including the package of safety items and toys. These participants had access to an information officer who met with participants before the child’s birth and at various intervals after birth and provided information on Preparing for Life community events and other local services. Participants in the comparison group had access to public health workshops, such as a stress-control program and a healthy food program. |
| Subgroups examined |
This field lists subgroups examined in the manuscript (even if they were not replicated in other samples and not reported on the summary page for this model’s report). • Child gender (boy or girl) |
| Funding sources | The Atlantic Philanthropies and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs (Ireland) supported the research. |
| Author affiliation | Dr. Doyle and the Preparing for Life Evaluation team are affiliated with the University College Dublin Geary Institute for Public Policy. The authors were contracted by the home visiting model developers to evaluate Preparing for Life—Home Visiting. |
| Peer reviewed | Yes |
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: None found. SocialScienceRegistry.org Identifier: None found. Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies Identifier: None found. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE for Clinicaltrials.gov beginning with the 2014 review, and for other registries beginning with the 2021 review.
Findings that rate moderate or high
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Externalizing Problems Cutoff, Inverse Probability Weighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Not reported | Not reported | Mean difference = -0.04 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Finding from inverse probability weighted (IPW) model |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Externalizing Problems Cutoff, Unweighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Unadjusted proportion = 0.09 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.11 | Mean difference = -0.02 | HomVEE calculated = -0.15 | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Externalizing Problems, Inverse Probability Weighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Not reported | Not reported | Mean difference = -1.33 | HomVEE calculated = -0.14 | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Externalizing Problems, Unweighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Unadjusted mean = 45.78 | Unadjusted mean = 47.25 | Mean difference = -0.39 | HomVEE calculated = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Internalizing Problems Cutoff, Inverse Probability Weighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Not reported | Not reported | Mean difference = -0.01 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Finding from inverse probability weighted (IPW) model |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Internalizing Problems Cutoff, Unweighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Unadjusted proportion = 0.11 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.12 | Mean difference = -0.09 | HomVEE calculated = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Internalizing Problems, Inverse Probability Weighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Not reported | Not reported | Mean difference = -1.30 | HomVEE calculated = -0.13 | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Internalizing Problems, Unweighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Unadjusted mean = 45.84 | Unadjusted mean = 46.55 | Mean difference = -0.71 | HomVEE calculated = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Total Problems Cutoff, Inverse Probability Weighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Not reported | Not reported | Mean difference = -0.13 | HomVEE calculated = -0.41 | Statistically significant, p= <0.01 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Total Problems Cutoff, Unweighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Unadjusted proportion = 0.05 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.16 | Mean difference = -0.10 | HomVEE calculated = -0.33 | Statistically significant, p= <0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Total Problems, Inverse Probability Weighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Not reported | Not reported | Mean difference = -2.36 | HomVEE calculated = -0.23 | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Total Problems, Unweighted results |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample |
24 months old |
164 children | Unadjusted mean = 45.79 | Unadjusted mean = 47.25 | Mean difference = -1.46 | HomVEE calculated = -0.14 | Not statistically significant, p= ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |