Manuscript Detail

Knox, V., & Michalopoulos, C. (2022). Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE), United States, 2012-2017 (ICPSR 37848) [Study 1, EHS contrast]. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37848.v2

Manuscript screening details
Screening decision Screening conclusion HomVEE procedures and standards version
Passes screens Eligible for review Version 2
Study design details
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

Notes:

The Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE) included four evidence-based home visiting models; this review focuses on Early Head Start (EHS). Some findings about the child’s weight received a low rating because they had high attrition and did not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement. Some findings about the mother’s health, parenting practices, the child’s food security and attitudes toward the parent received an indeterminate rating because HomVEE could not assess whether the measures were reliable according to HomVEE standards. Information on sample sizes and reliability of the measures, along with information necessary to demonstrate baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups, is based on correspondence with the authors.

Study characteristics
Study participants Study participants were recruited into the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE) 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 573 participants were randomly assigned to either the Early Head Start–Home-based option (EHS–HBO) intervention group (285 participants) or the comparison condition (288 participants). Up to 535 participants and one focal child each were included in the study: 264 in EHS–HBO and 271 in the comparison group. Outcomes were measured when the focal child was 15 months old. In the study, 17 percent of mothers were of Mexican origin, 7 percent were another Hispanic ethnicity, 31 percent were non-Hispanic White, 34 percent were non-Hispanic Black, and 11 percent identified as another race. Thirty-eight percent of mothers did not have a high school diploma at study enrollment. At enrollment, the average age of participating mothers was 25.
Setting The study took place in 12 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. The study selected 19 local program affiliates that operated EHS–HBO and met program eligibility criteria.
Intervention services Early Head Start–Home-based option (EHS–HBO) consisted of weekly home visits. The manuscript does not provide any other information on the EHS–HBO programs in the study, including the intensity or length of services offered to participating families. Generally, the content and delivery of EHS–HBO vary, but the intervention has historically focused on providing continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support services; and families are eligible to receive services until the child’s third birthday.
Comparison conditions Families assigned to the comparison condition were not eligible to enroll in the Early Head Start–Home-based option. They could receive other services available in the 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).

• Pregnancy status (pregnant or not pregnant at study enrollment)

Funding sources This research was supported by the Administration for Children and Families, and 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 its subcontractors James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, the University of Georgia, and Columbia University. HomVEE is not aware of any relationship between the authors and the home visiting model’s developer or distributor.
Peer reviewed No
Study Registration:

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02069782. 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

Child development and school readiness
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

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

468 children Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.30 Not available

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Received any early intervention services (%)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

463 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.01 Study reported = 0.06

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Use of nonparental child care

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

455 children Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.07 Study reported = 0.18

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

Child health
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

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

537 children Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.06 Study reported = -0.25

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Number of Medicaid-paid immunizations

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

445 children Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.70 Not available

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Primary care provider for the child (%)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

474 children Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.01 Study reported = -0.04

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

Family economic self-sufficiency
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

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

540 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.10

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Received any transportation services

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

457 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.04 Study reported = -0.24

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Received disability insurance during the past month

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

458 children Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.01

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Received SNAP during the past month

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

458 children Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.08

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Received TANF during the past month

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

457 children Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.01 Study reported = -0.02

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Received WIC during the past month

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

458 children Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.05 Study reported = 0.16

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

Maternal health
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

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

457 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.07 Study reported = -0.22

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported. The study reported this finding was statistically significant (p = .02) prior to a multiple comparisons adjustment.

High

Parenting Stress Index - Short Form (PSI-SF), Parent-child dysfunctional interaction

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

460 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.20 Not available

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Parenting Stress Index - Short Form (PSI-SF), Parental distress

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

460 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.10 Not available

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Received any behavioral health services

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

456 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.04 Study reported = -0.26

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Substance use during the past three months

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

453 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.03 Study reported = 0.13

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

Reductions in child maltreatment
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

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

544 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.01 Study reported = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Loss of custody

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

416 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.01 Study reported = 0.17

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime
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

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

457 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.01 Study reported = -0.08

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Received any services from a domestic violence shelter

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

457 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.03 Study reported = -0.53

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), Maternal experience with physical or sexual violence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

456 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.31

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), Maternal perpetration of physical violence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

456 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = -0.01 Study reported = -0.07

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.

High

Women's Experience with Battering (WEB) Scale

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

15-month follow-up

452 mothers Not reported Not reported Difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Submitted by user on

Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

The statistical significance after the author's adjustment for multiple comparisons is reported.