Manuscript Details

Llewellyn, G., McConnell, D., Honey, A., Mayes, R., & Russo, D. (2003). Promoting health and home safety for children of parents with intellectual disability: A randomized controlled trial. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24(6), 405-431.

Moderate rating
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1
Model(s) Reviewed
Australian adaptation of the UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project, a version of SafeCare

Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.

Author Affiliation

Not specified.

Funding Sources

Best Practice Parenting Education Initiative of the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and the NSW Ageing and Disability Department, August 1998 to November 2000.

Study Design
Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Confounding factors Valid, reliable measures?
Randomized controlled trial Not applicable

Established on race/ethnicity and SES

None

 Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Findings that rate moderate or high in this manuscript

Positive parenting practices
Outcome measure Timing of follow-up Rating Direction of Effect Effect size (absolute value) Stastical significance Sample size Sample description
Health comprehension Assessment 2 Moderate
0.16 Not available 31 families Group 1 vs. Group 2
Illness and symptom recognition Assessment 2 Moderate
1.09 Not available 31 families Group 1 vs. Group 2
Life threatening emergencies Assessment 2 Moderate
1.79 Not available 31 families Group 1 vs. Group 2
Going to the doctor Assessment 2 Moderate
0.78 Not available 31 families Group 1 vs. Group 2
Using medicine safely Assessment 2 Moderate
0.97 Not available 31 families Group 1 vs. Group 2
Health comprehension Assessment 2 Moderate
0.71 Not available 30 families Group 1 vs. Group 3
Illness and symptom recognition Assessment 2 Moderate
0.62 Not available 30 families Group 1 vs. Group 3
Life threatening emergencies Assessment 2 Moderate
0.98 Not available 30 families Group 1 vs. Group 3
Going to the doctor Assessment 2 Moderate
0.59 Not available 30 families Group 1 vs. Group 3
Using medicine safely Assessment 2 Moderate
1.30 Not available 30 families Group 1 vs. Group 3
Health comprehension Assessment 2 Moderate
0.36 Not available 24 families Group 1 vs. Group 4
Illness and symptom recognition Assessment 2 Moderate
0.69 Not available 24 families Group 1 vs. Group 4
Life threatening emergencies Assessment 2 Moderate
0.88 Not available 24 families Group 1 vs. Group 4
Going to the doctor Assessment 2 Moderate
0.92 Not available 24 families Group 1 vs. Group 4
Using medicine safely Assessment 2 Moderate
0.46 Not available 24 families Group 1 vs. Group 4
Home Illustrations—Dangers Assessment 2 Moderate
1.65 Not available 31 families Group 1 vs. Group 2
Home Illustrations—Precautions Assessment 2 Moderate
1.75 Not available 31 families Group 1 vs. Group 2
Home Precautions Assessment 2 Moderate
0.60 Not available 31 families Group 1 vs. Group 2
Home Illustrations—Dangers Assessment 2 Moderate
2.02 Not available 30 families Group 1 vs. Group 3
Home Illustrations—Precautions Assessment 2 Moderate
1.91 Not available 30 families Group 1 vs. Group 3
Home Precautions Assessment 2 Moderate
0.35 Not available 30 families Group 1 vs. Group 3
Home Illustrations—Dangers Assessment 2 Moderate
1.50 Not available 24 families Group 1 vs. Group 4
Home Illustrations—Precautions Assessment 2 Moderate
1.92 Not available 24 families Group 1 vs. Group 4
Home Precautions Assessment 2 Moderate
0.67 Not available 24 families Group 1 vs. Group 4
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Study Participants

Parents eligible to participate in the study (1) were the primary caretakers of children younger than 5 years of age, (2) spoke English as their first language, and (3) had an intellectual disability. A total of 63 parents from 57 families were recruited; of these, 45 parents from 40 families completed the project. The authors categorized the sample as follows: 82 percent of the parents were from an English-speaking background, 13 percent were from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, and 5 percent were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.

Setting

Sydney, Australia

Home Visiting Services

The authors called this adaptation of SafeCare the Home Learning Project (HLP). The HLP was adapted from the UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project for the Australian context (e.g., language was changed to reflect Australian usage). The goal of the intervention was to equip parents of young children with the knowledge and skills necessary for managing home dangers, accidents, and childhood illnesses. The HLP consisted of 10 lessons, delivered by a trained parent educator in a one-on-one situation in the parent's home. The lessons lasted 60 to 90 minutes and occurred over a 10- to 12-week period.

Model(s) Reviewed
Australian adaptation of the UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project, a version of SafeCare

Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.

Comparison Conditions

The research design permitted all parents to receive the HLP in a staggered sequence. Initially, each parent was randomly allocated to one of three groups. However, a fourth group was created of parents who were referred late and would not have been able to complete the staggered sequence. During the first intervention phase, Group 1 (n = 20) received the full HLP intervention. Group 2 (n = 11) received home visits but no parent education. Groups 3 and 4 (n = 10 and n = 4, respectively) received business-as-usual services in this phase. Assessment 2 occurred after the first intervention phase. During the second intervention phase, Group 2 received HLP, Group 3 received lesson booklets only, and Group 4 received HLP. Assessment 3 occurs after this phase. At this point, all groups had received some portion of the intervention.