Knox, V., & Michalopoulos, C. (2023). Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE), United States, 2012-2019. MIHOPE Model Results Documentation [Study 3-NFP contrast]. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37848.v3.
| 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 |
The Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation included four evidence-based home visiting models; this review focuses on Nurse-Family Partnership and the findings in Knox & Michalopoulos, 2023. HomVEE has reviewed additional analyses from the MIHOPE evaluation under Michalopoulos et al., 2019. Findings for maternal health status and depression; food insecurity; parental unsupportiveness, engagement, and discipline; awareness of health and safety hazards; several findings related to child behavior; and one child maltreatment outcome related to physical abuse received a rating of indeterminate because HomVEE could not assess whether the measures were reliable according to HomVEE standards. One finding, any report of child maltreatment, was ineligible for review because HomVEE does not review unsubstantiated reports of child maltreatment. Information on sample sizes and reliability and validity of measures, along with information necessary to demonstrate equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups, is based on correspondence with the authors.
| Study participants | The Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE) is a national evaluation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program. MIHOPE study participants were recruited from 2012 to 2015. Participants were eligible for the MIHOPE evaluation if they were pregnant or had children younger than 6 months old, were age 15 or older at enrollment, spoke English or Spanish proficiently, and met the relevant eligibility criteria for the local home visiting model. A total of 1,235 participants were recruited for the study in Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) programs and randomly assigned to either the NFP home visiting intervention group (615 participants) or the comparison condition (620 participants). Up to 1,176 participants recruited for the study through NFP programs were included in the analyses: 585 in NFP and 591 in the comparison group. Similarly, up to 1,105 children of these participants were included in the analyses: 551 in NFP and 554 in the comparison group. Outcomes were measured when the study children were 15 months old. For the MIHOPE participants recruited through NFP programs, 30 percent of participants were of Mexican origin, 18 percent were another Hispanic ethnicity, 17 percent were White, 24 percent were Black, and 10 percent were another race. Forty-one percent had less than a high school diploma at study entry. At enrollment, the average age of participants recruited through HFA programs was 21. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study took place in 12 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. The evaluation selected 22 local program affiliates that operated Nurse-Family Partnership and met program eligibility criteria. |
| Intervention services | As described in this manuscript, the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) intervention consists of activities designed to help participants obtain prenatal care, improve their diets, reduce their use of harmful substances, provide responsible and competent care for their children, plan future pregnancies, continue their education, and find work. The content and delivery of NFP vary, with flexibility of the visit, content, and frequency based on families’ strengths, risks, and needs. Participants enroll in NFP when they are no more than 28 weeks pregnant. The manuscript does not provide additional information on the NFP programs in the study, including the intensity or length of services offered to participating families. |
| Comparison conditions | Participants assigned to the comparison group were not eligible to receive Nurse-Family Partnership services. They received information about other appropriate services in their local community. |
| 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). There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript. |
| Funding sources | This research was supported by the Administration for Children and Families, funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a competitive award, Contract No. HHS-HHSP23320095644WC. |
| Author affiliation | Authors are affiliated with MDRC and subcontractors James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, and New York University. HomVEE is not aware of any relationship between the authors and the home visiting model developer or distributor. |
| Peer reviewed | No |
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02069782. 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 | Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total competence score |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
932 children | Adjusted mean = 27.50 | Adjusted mean = 27.60 | Difference = -0.10 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Received any early intervention services (%) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
910 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.04 | Adjusted proportion = 0.04 | Difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Use of nonparental child care |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
905 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.51 | Adjusted proportion = 0.56 | Difference = -0.05 | Study reported = -0.12 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Any Medicaid-paid nonbirth hospitalizations |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
1,105 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.14 | Adjusted proportion = 0.20 | Difference = -0.06 | Study reported = -0.26 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. The study reported this finding was statistically significant (p = 0.01) prior to a multiple comparisons adjustment. |
| High | At risk of being overweight (%) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
747 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.29 | Adjusted proportion = 0.34 | Difference = -0.05 | Study reported = -0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Duration of breastfeeding |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
918 children | Adjusted mean = 4.40 | Adjusted mean = 4.60 | Difference = -0.20 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Normal weight (%) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
747 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.59 | Adjusted proportion = 0.54 | Difference = 0.05 | Study reported = 0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Number of Medicaid-paid immunizations |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
895 children | Adjusted mean = 6.90 | Adjusted mean = 7.50 | Difference = -0.60 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Primary care provider for the child (%) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
939 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.88 | Adjusted proportion = 0.88 | Difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Underweight (%) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
747 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.11 | Adjusted proportion = 0.12 | Difference = -0.01 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Health insurance coverage for the mother |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
1,176 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.87 | Adjusted proportion = 0.85 | Difference = 0.01 | Study reported = 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Received any transportation services |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
906 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.07 | Adjusted proportion = 0.11 | Difference = -0.05 | Study reported = -0.35 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. The study reported this finding was statistically significant (p = 0.02) prior to a multiple comparisons adjustment. |
| High | Received disability insurance during the past month |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
905 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.05 | Adjusted proportion = 0.06 | Difference = -0.01 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Received SNAP during the past month |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
906 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.43 | Adjusted proportion = 0.46 | Difference = -0.03 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Received TANF during the past month |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
905 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.13 | Adjusted proportion = 0.14 | Difference = -0.01 | Study reported = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Received WIC during the past month |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
909 children | Adjusted proportion = 0.72 | Adjusted proportion = 0.72 | Difference = -0.01 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Current smoker |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
907 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.13 | Adjusted proportion = 0.12 | Difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Parenting Stress Index - Short Form (PSI-SF), parent-child dysfunctional interaction |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
914 mothers | Adjusted mean = 10.30 | Adjusted mean = 11.10 | Difference = -0.80 | Not available | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. The study reported this finding was statistically significant (p = 0.001) prior to a multiple comparisons adjustment, and remained significant after the adjustment. |
| High | Parenting Stress Index - Short Form (PSI-SF), parental distress |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
917 mothers | Adjusted mean = 11.10 | Adjusted mean = 11.40 | Difference = -0.30 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated the adjusted intervention group mean by adding the reported adjusted comparison group mean to the reported estimated effect. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Received any behavioral health services |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
906 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.05 | Adjusted proportion = 0.04 | Difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Substance use during the past three months |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
908 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.17 | Adjusted proportion = 0.12 | Difference = 0.05 | Study reported = 0.27 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. The study reported this finding was statistically significant (p = 0.02) prior to a multiple comparisons adjustment. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Any substantiated maltreatment report |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
1,157 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.02 | Adjusted proportion = 0.03 | Difference = -0.01 | Study reported = -0.30 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Loss of custody |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
1,039 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.02 | Adjusted proportion = 0.01 | Difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Received any domestic violence services |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
908 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.01 | Adjusted proportion = 0.03 | Difference = -0.02 | Study reported = -0.49 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Received any services from a domestic violence shelter |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
906 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.01 | Adjusted proportion = 0.02 | Difference = -0.01 | Study reported = -0.34 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), maternal experience with physical or sexual violence |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
904 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.03 | Adjusted proportion = 0.07 | Difference = -0.04 | Study reported = -0.52 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. The study reported this finding was statistically significant (p = 0.01) prior to a multiple comparisons adjustment. |
| High | Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), maternal perpetration of physical violence |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
903 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.06 | Adjusted proportion = 0.09 | Difference = -0.03 | Study reported = -0.25 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |
| High | Women's Experiences with Battering Scale (WEB) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample |
15-month follow-up |
898 mothers | Adjusted proportion = 0.04 | Adjusted proportion = 0.04 | Difference = -0.01 | Study reported = -0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons is reported; precise p-values are not available. |