Black or African American
34%
Source
Peer reviewed?
No
Michalopoulos, C., Faucetta, K., Hill, C. J., Portilla, X., Burrell, L., Lee, H., Duggan, A., & Knox, V. (2019). Impacts on family outcomes of evidence-based early childhood home visiting: Results from the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (OPRE Report 2019-07). [Study 1-EHS contrast]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/mihope_impac….
Model(s) Reviewed
Study Registration
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.
Study Design
| Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measures? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | Low | Not assessed for randomized controlled trials with low attrition |
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) and the findings in Michalopoulos et al. 2019. HomVEE has reviewed additional analyses from the MIHOPE evaluation under Knox & Michalopoulos, 2023. Findings in the manuscript that are pooled across various home visiting models are ineligible for review because HomVEE only reviews findings that isolate the effects of a specific model.
Findings about children’s language skills, psychological and physical assault, and quality of the home environment 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 measures 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 573 participants were recruited for the study in Early Head Start – Home Based (EHS–HBO) programs and randomly assigned to either the EHS–HBO intervention group (285 participants) or the comparison condition (288 participants). Up to 535 participants recruited for the study through EHS–HBO programs and one focal child each were included in the analyses: 264 in EHS–HBO and 271 in the comparison group. Outcomes were measured when the focal child was 15 months old. For the MIHOPE participants recruited through EHS–HBO programs, 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 of participating mothers recruited through EHS–HBO programs 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.
Home Visiting Services
As described in this manuscript, Early Head Start–Home-based option (EHS–HBO) consisted of weekly home visits. 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. EHS–HBO participants in this evaluation enrolled during pregnancy or before their child turned three-years-old. Participants were offered weekly visits through EHS–HBO until their child’s third birthday, but children can remain with EHS–HBO until they transition into another appropriate setting.
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.
Were any subgroups examined?
No
Subgroups examined
There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript.
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 573 participants were recruited for the study in Early Head Start – Home Based (EHS–HBO) programs and randomly assigned to either the EHS–HBO intervention group (285 participants) or the comparison condition (288 participants). Up to 535 participants recruited for the study through EHS–HBO programs and one focal child each were included in the analyses: 264 in EHS–HBO and 271 in the comparison group. Outcomes were measured when the focal child was 15 months old. For the MIHOPE participants recruited through EHS–HBO programs, 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 of participating mothers recruited through EHS–HBO programs 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.
Home Visiting Services
As described in this manuscript, Early Head Start–Home-based option (EHS–HBO) consisted of weekly home visits. 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. EHS–HBO participants in this evaluation enrolled during pregnancy or before their child turned three-years-old. Participants were offered weekly visits through EHS–HBO until their child’s third birthday, but children can remain with EHS–HBO until they transition into another appropriate setting.
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.
Were any subgroups examined?
No
Subgroups examined
There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript.
Findings that rate moderate or high in this manuscript
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New pregnancy after study entry, % (fixed effect random slope analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.54 |
457 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
New pregnancy after study entry, % (restricted maximum likelihood analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.52 |
457 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
New pregnancy after study entry, % (split-sample analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.14 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.40 |
457 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Receiving education or training, % (fixed effect random slope analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.47 |
458 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Health insurance coverage for the child, % (fixed effect random slope analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.45 |
535 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Receiving education or training, % (restricted maximum likelihood analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.51 |
458 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Health insurance coverage for the child, % (restricted maximum likelihood analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.55 |
535 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Receiving education or training, % (split-sample analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.80 |
458 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
||
Health insurance coverage for the child, % (split-sample analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.21 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.49 |
535 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Three-Bag Task composite score of parental supportiveness (fixed effect random slope analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.62 |
397 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
||
Three-Bag Task composite score of parental supportiveness (restricted maximum likelihood analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.64 |
397 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
||
Three-Bag Task composite score of parental supportiveness (split-sample analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.99 |
397 mothers | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of Medicaid-paid well-child visits (fixed effect random slope analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.06 |
445 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Number of Medicaid-paid child emergency department visits (fixed effect random slope analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.07 |
445 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Number of Medicaid-paid well-child visits (restricted maximum likelihood analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.23 |
445 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Number of Medicaid-paid child emergency department visits (restricted maximum likelihood analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.26 |
445 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Number of Medicaid-paid well-child visits (split-sample analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.64 |
445 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Number of Medicaid-paid child emergency department visits (split-sample analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.36 |
445 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Any Medicaid-paid health care encounter for injury or ingestion, % (fixed effect random slope analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.61 |
442 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Any Medicaid-paid health care encounter for injury or ingestion, % (restricted maximum likelihood analysis) |
15 months old |
High | Not statistically significant, p= 0.89 |
442 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
|||
Any Medicaid-paid health care encounter for injury or ingestion, % (split-sample analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.98 |
442 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total problem score (fixed effect random slope analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.88 |
470 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
||
Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total problem score (restricted maximum likelihood analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.92 |
470 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
||
Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total problem score (split-sample analysis) |
15 months old |
High | 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.27 |
470 children | EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2014, United States, full sample |
This study included participants with the following characteristics at enrollment:
Race/Ethnicity
Maternal Education
Other Characteristics
This study included participants from the following locations:
- California
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Michigan
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- Pennsylvania
- South Carolina
- Washington
- Wisconsin