Manuscript Detail | Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness

Source

Peer reviewed?

Knox, V., & Michalopoulos, C. (2023). Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE), United States, 2012-2019. MIHOPE Model Results Documentation [Study 1, EHS contrast]. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37848.v3.

Rating

High

Model(s) Reviewed

Early Head Start—Home-based option

Study Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov

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.

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 Knox & Michalopoulos, 2023. HomVEE has reviewed additional analyses from the MIHOPE evaluation under Michalopoulos et al., 2019. 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 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 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 age 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. 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.

Were any subgroups examined?

Subgroups examined

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

Findings that rate moderate or high in this manuscript

Family economic self-sufficiency
Outcome measure	Timing of follow-up	Rating	Effect size	Stastical significance	Sample size	Sample description
Health insurance coverage for the mother	15-month follow-up	High	-0.10	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	540 mothers	EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample
Received SNAP during the past month	15-month follow-up	High	-0.08	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	458 children	EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample
Received disability insurance during the past month	15-month follow-up	High	0.01	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	458 children	EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample
Received TANF during the past month	15-month follow-up	High	-0.02	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	457 children	EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample
Received WIC during the past month	15-month follow-up	High	0.16	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	458 children	EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample
Received any transportation services	15-month follow-up	High	-0.24	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	457 mothers	EHS-HBO vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE); 2012-2014, full sample

Effect rating key

Favorable finding / Statistically significant

UnFavorable finding / Statistically significant

Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant