Manuscript Details

Dodge, K. A., Goodman, W. B., Murphy, R. A., O’Donnell, K., Sato, J., & Guptill, S. (2014). Implementation and randomized controlled trial evaluation of universal postnatal nurse home visiting. American Journal of Public Health, 104(S1), S136–S143.

Additional Sources:
  • Dodge, K. A., Goodman, W. B., Murphy, R., O’Donnell, K. T., & Sato, J. M. (2013). Toward population impact from home visiting. Zero to Three, 33(3), 17-23.

  • Mandel, A. D., Dodge, K. A., Goodman, W. B., Murphy, R. A., & O’Donnell, K. J. (2013). A multi-risk moderation analysis of a universal maternal-infant home visiting program. Unpublished manuscript, currently under review.

  • Dodge, K. A., & Goodman, B. (2012). Durham Connects impact evaluation final report. Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States.

Model(s): Family Connects
Study Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov
Moderate 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 race; not established on SES; not established on outcome measures assessable at baseline

None

Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1
Child Health
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Did not have emergency medical care episodes (hospital records), proportion Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.06 Not statistically significant, p=0.50 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Did not have emergency medical care episodes (parent report) proportion Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.03 Not statistically significant, p=0.70 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Most recent well-baby visit within past month Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.07 Not statistically significant, p = 0.54 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
No. of emergency department visits (hospital records) Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.09 Not statistically significant, p = 0.36 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
No. of emergency medical visits (parent report) Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.12 Not statistically significant, p = 0.07 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
No. of overnights in hospital (parent report) Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.20 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
No. of total emergency medical care episodes (hospital records) Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.26 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
No. of total emergency medical care episodes (parent report) Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.21 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Three or more emergency medical care episodes (hospital records), proportion Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.65 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Three or more emergency medical care episodes (parent report), proportion Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.26 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Two or more emergency medical care episodes (hospital records), proportion Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.31 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Two or more emergency medical care episodes (parent report), proportion Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.13 Not statistically significant, p=0.13 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Linkages and Referrals
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
No. of community connections Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.28 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Maternal Health
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Mother possible anxiety disorder Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.27 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Mother possible clinical depression disorder Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.29 Not statistically significant, p = 0.25 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Mother possible substance use problems Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.19 Not statistically significant, p = 0.58 530 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Positive Parenting Practices
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Father–infant relationship quality Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.21 Not statistically significant, p = 0.08 524 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Mother knowledge of infant development Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.11 Not statistically significant, p = 0.10 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Mother negative parenting behaviors Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.59 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Mother positive parenting behaviors Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.25 Statistically significant, p 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
Mother sense of parenting competence Infant Age 6 months Moderate
0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.83 531 families Interviewed subsample, 7/2009-12/2010 births
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.

Black or African American
39%
Hispanic or Latino
25%
White
27%
Some other race
9%

Maternal Education

Data not available

Other Characteristics

Enrollment in means-tested programs
66%

This study included participants from the following locations:

  • North Carolina
Study Participants

Among 4,777 residential births from July 1, 2009, through December 31, 2010, the authors randomly selected one family with a birth on each even day to receive Durham Connects, and one family with a birth on each odd day to be followed as the control group. If those selected did not consent to be studied, the authors replaced them with a randomly selected family from the same birth date with the same race/ethnicity. Among the 664 families enrolled in the study, 531 participated in follow-up data collection. Participating families were approximately one-quarter non-Hispanic white, 40 percent black, one-quarter Hispanic, and 9 percent were another race or ethnicity. Mothers were about 28 years old on average. Control group babies had slightly worse birth outcomes (on average) than control group babies. Eight percent of control group babies had a birth complication, whereas only 4 percent of Durham Connects babies had a birth complication (a statistically significant difference, p less than 0.05).

Setting

Durham, North Carolina

Intervention condition
Comparison Conditions

Families in the comparison condition could receive other services in their community, but were not eligible to receive Durham Connects services.

Subgroups examined

• Maternal childcare use (uses out-of-home care)

Author Affiliation

The authors are affiliated with the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University, which sponsors Durham Connects.

Funding Sources

The Duke Endowment, the Pew Center on the States, NIH Grants K05DA15226 and P30DA023026.