Manuscript Details

Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Powers, J., & Olds, D. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 9-15.

High rating
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1
Study design characteristics contributing to rating
Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Confounding factors? Valid, reliable measures?
Randomized controlled trial Low

Established on SES; Not established on maternal race, but analysis controlled for child race.

None

Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1
Notes from the review of this manuscript

In 2020, HomVEE updated this review to move the 14 findings related to the child's sexual behavior, pregnancy, and use of alcohol or drugs from the Child Health domain to the Child Development and School Readiness domain because ACF determined that all measures of child behavioral health, including children's risky behaviors, belong in HomVEE's Child Development and School Readiness domain.

Child Development and School Readiness
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Frequency of birth control use 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Frequency of birth control use 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Frequency of condom use 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Frequency of condom use 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of sex partners, past year 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of sex partners, past year 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Binge drinking 19-year follow-up High
0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Binge drinking 19-year follow-up High
0.11 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever been pregnant/made a girl pregnant 19-year follow-up High
0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever been pregnant/made a girl pregnant 19-year follow-up High
0.04 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever fathered a child/given birth 19-year follow-up High
0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever fathered a child/given birth 19-year follow-up High
0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Graduated from high school 19-year follow-up High
0.12 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Graduated from high school 19-year follow-up High
0.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Illicit drug use 19-year follow-up High
0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Illicit drug use 19-year follow-up High
0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Subgroups
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Binge drinking 19-year follow up High
0.12 Not statistically significant, p = 0.67 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Ever been pregnant 19-year follow up High
0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.93 116 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Ever given birth 19-year follow up High
0.05 Not statistically significant, p = 0.86 116 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Graduated from high school 19-year follow up High
0.30 Not statistically significant, p = 0.29 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Illicit drug use 19-year follow up High
0.11 Not statistically significant, p = 0.65 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Number of sex partners, past year 19-year follow up High
0.00 Not statistically significant, p = 1.00 115 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Family Economic Self-Sufficiency
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Economically productive 19-year follow-up High
0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Economically productive 19-year follow-up High
0.13 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever used AFDC 19-year follow-up High
0.26 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever used AFDC 19-year follow-up High
0.68 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever used food stamps 19-year follow-up High
0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever used food stamps 19-year follow-up High
0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever used Medicaid 19-year follow-up High
0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Ever used Medicaid 19-year follow-up High
0.34 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Subgroups
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Economically productive 19-year follow up High
0.17 Not statistically significant, p = 0.38 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Ever used AFDC 19-year follow up High
0.35 Not statistically significant, p = 0.32 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Ever used food stamps 19-year follow up High
0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.96 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Ever used Medicaid 19-year follow up High
0.20 Not statistically significant, p = 0.44 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Reductions in Juvenile Delinquency, Family Violence, and Crime
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Number of arrests, lifetime 19-year follow-up High
Statistically significant, p < 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of arrests, lifetime 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of arrests, past year 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of arrests, past year 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of convictions, lifetime 19-year follow-up High
Statistically significant, p < 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of convictions, lifetime 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of convictions, past year 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Number of convictions, past year 19-year follow-up High
Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Arrested, lifetime 19-year follow-up High
0.48 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Arrested, lifetime 19-year follow-up High
0.20 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Arrested, past year 19-year follow-up High
0.03 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Arrested, past year 19-year follow-up High
0.49 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Convicted, lifetime 19-year follow-up High
0.64 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Convicted, lifetime 19-year follow-up High
0.16 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Convicted, past year 19-year follow-up High
0.34 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Convicted, past year 19-year follow-up High
0.56 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Felony assault 19-year follow-up High
0.64 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Felony assault 19-year follow-up High
0.52 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Fraud 19-year follow-up High
0.67 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Fraud 19-year follow-up High
0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Illegal services 19-year follow-up High
0.34 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Illegal services 19-year follow-up High
0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Minor assault 19-year follow-up High
0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Minor assault 19-year follow-up High
0.03 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Minor theft 19-year follow-up High
0.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Minor theft 19-year follow-up High
0.14 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Public disorder 19-year follow-up High
0.18 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Public disorder 19-year follow-up High
0.13 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Vandalism 19-year follow-up High
0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 231 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)
Vandalism 19-year follow-up High
0.24 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 219 children Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)
Subgroups
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Arrested, lifetime 19-year follow up High
0.33 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Arrested, lifetime - 15 year follow-up 15-year follow up High
0.10 Not statistically significant, p = 0.88 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (boys)
Arrested, lifetime - 15 year follow-up 15-year follow up High
1.30 Statistically significant, p = 0.00 124 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (boys)
Arrested, past year 19-year follow up High
0.36 Not statistically significant, p = 0.61 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Convicted, lifetime 19-year follow up High
0.20 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Convicted, past year 19-year follow up High
0.10 Not statistically significant, p = 0.89 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Felony assault 19-year follow up High
2.46 Not statistically significant, p = 0.40 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Fraud 19-year follow up High
2.01 Not statistically significant, p = 0.49 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Illegal services 19-year follow up High
0.36 Not statistically significant, p = 0.61 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Minor assault 19-year follow up High
0.19 Not statistically significant, p = 0.65 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Minor theft 19-year follow up High
0.13 Not statistically significant, p = 0.81 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Number of arrests, lifetime 19-year follow up High
0.18 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Number of arrests, past year 19-year follow up High
2.64 Statistically significant, p = 0.00 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Number of convictions, lifetime 19-year follow up High
0.11 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Number of convictions, past year 19-year follow up High
2.34 Statistically significant, p = 0.00 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Public disorder 19-year follow up High
0.23 Not statistically significant, p = 0.40 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Vandalism 19-year follow up High
0.59 Not statistically significant, p = 0.30 117 children Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira); Subgroup: Child gender (girls)
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant

This study included participants with the following characteristics at enrollment:

Race/Ethnicity

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if Hispanic ethnicity was reported separately or respondents could select two or more race or ethnicity categories.

White
88%
Unknown
12%

Maternal Education

Data not available

Other Characteristics

Data not available

This study included participants from the following locations:

  • New York
Study Participants

The authors actively recruited pregnant, first-time mothers who were fewer than 25 weeks pregnant, were younger than 19 years old, were single parents, or had low socioeconomic status. Between April 1978 and September 1980, 500 women were interviewed and 400 were randomly assigned to one of four conditions (two treatment and two comparison groups). This study measured the sample when the children were 19 years old. The sample included 310 youth (170 in the treatment groups and 140 in the comparison groups).

Setting

Elmira, NY

Intervention condition
Comparison Conditions

The study included two comparison groups, which were combined for the analyses. Families in the first group were provided the same sensory and developmental screening for the child at 12 and 24 months of age as the treatment groups. Based on the results of these screenings, the children were referred for clinical evaluation and treatment when needed. Families in the second group were provided these same screening services plus free transportation for prenatal and well-child care through the child’s second birthday. There were no differences between in the groups in their use of prenatal and well-child care.

Subgroups examined

• Child gender (boy or girl) • Subgroups defined by combinations of maternal characteristics (unmarried and low income)

Author Affiliation

David L. Olds, a study author, is a developer of this model.

Funding Sources

This research was supported by grant 801-099 from the Smith Richardson Foundation. Support for earlier phases of this trial was provided by a Senior Research Scientist Award (Dr Olds) and by grants from the Prevention Research and Behavioral Medicine Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (Department of Health and Human Services), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the W.T. Grant Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Commonwealth Fund. Dr Olds’ Research Center at the University of Colorado has a contract with the NFP National Service Office to conduct research on improving the NFP model.