Manuscript Details

Source

Peer reviewed?
No

Knox, V., & Michalopoulos, C. (2023). Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE), United States, 2012-2019. MIHOPE Model Results Documentation [Study 3-NFP contrast]. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37848.v3.

 

High rating
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 2

Note: Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model. See the study manuscript for more information about how the model was implemented in this study.

Author Affiliation

Authors are affiliated with MDRC and subcontractors James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, and New York University. HomVEE is not aware of any relationship between the authors and the home visiting model developer or distributor.

Funding Sources

This research was supported by the Administration for Children and Families, 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 included four evidence-based home visiting models; this review focuses on Nurse-Family Partnership and the findings in Knox & Michalopoulos, 2023. HomVEE has reviewed additional analyses from the MIHOPE evaluation under Michalopoulos et al., 2019. Findings for maternal health status and depression; food insecurity; parental unsupportiveness, engagement, and discipline; awareness of health and safety hazards; several findings related to child behavior; and one child maltreatment outcome related to physical abuse received a rating of indeterminate because HomVEE could not assess whether the measures were reliable according to HomVEE standards. One finding, any report of child maltreatment, was ineligible for review because HomVEE does not review unsubstantiated reports of child maltreatment. Information on sample sizes and reliability and validity of measures, along with information necessary to demonstrate 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 1,235 participants were recruited for the study in Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) programs and randomly assigned to either the NFP home visiting intervention group (615 participants) or the comparison condition (620 participants). Up to 1,176 participants recruited for the study through NFP programs were included in the analyses: 585 in NFP and 591 in the comparison group. Similarly, up to 1,105 children of these participants were included in the analyses: 551 in NFP and 554 in the comparison group. Outcomes were measured when the study children were 15 months old. For the MIHOPE participants recruited through NFP programs, 30 percent of participants were of Mexican origin, 18 percent were another Hispanic ethnicity, 17 percent were White, 24 percent were Black, and 10 percent were another race. Forty-one percent had less than a high school diploma at study entry. At enrollment, the average age of participants recruited through HFA programs was 21.

Setting

The study took place in 12 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. The evaluation selected 22 local program affiliates that operated Nurse-Family Partnership and met program eligibility criteria.

Home Visiting Services

As described in this manuscript, the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) intervention consists of activities designed to help participants obtain prenatal care, improve their diets, reduce their use of harmful substances, provide responsible and competent care for their children, plan future pregnancies, continue their education, and find work. The content and delivery of NFP vary, with flexibility of the visit, content, and frequency based on families’ strengths, risks, and needs. Participants enroll in NFP when they are no more than 28 weeks pregnant. The manuscript does not provide additional information on the NFP programs in the study, including the intensity or length of services offered to participating families.

Note: Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model. See the study manuscript for more information about how the model was implemented in this study.

Comparison Conditions

Participants assigned to the comparison group were not eligible to receive Nurse-Family Partnership services. They received information about other appropriate services in their local 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

Family economic self-sufficiency
Outcome measure Timing of follow-up Rating Direction of Effect Effect size (absolute value) Stastical significance Sample size Sample description

Health insurance coverage for the mother

15-month follow-up

High
0.06

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

1176 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received SNAP during the past month

15-month follow-up

High
0.07

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

906 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received disability insurance during the past month

15-month follow-up

High
0.06

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

905 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received TANF during the past month

15-month follow-up

High
0.03

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

905 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received WIC during the past month

15-month follow-up

High
0.01

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

909 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received any transportation services

15-month follow-up

High
0.35

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

906 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

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

Current smoker

15-month follow-up

High
0.02

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

907 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Substance use during the past three months

15-month follow-up

High
0.27

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

908 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received any behavioral health services

15-month follow-up

High
0.06

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

906 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Parenting Stress Index - Short Form (PSI-SF), parental distress

15-month follow-up

High

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

917 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Parenting Stress Index - Short Form (PSI-SF), parent-child dysfunctional interaction

15-month follow-up

High

Statistically significant, p < 0.05

914 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
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

Use of nonparental child care

15-month follow-up

High
0.12

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

905 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Brief Infant Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), total competence score

15-month follow-up

High

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

932 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received any early intervention services (%)

15-month follow-up

High
0.05

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

910 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

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

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), maternal perpetration of physical violence

15-month follow-up

High
0.25

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

903 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), maternal experience with physical or sexual violence

15-month follow-up

High
0.52

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

904 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Women's Experiences with Battering Scale (WEB)

15-month follow-up

High
0.10

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

898 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received any domestic violence services

15-month follow-up

High
0.49

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

908 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Received any services from a domestic violence shelter

15-month follow-up

High
0.34

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

906 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Reductions in child maltreatment
Outcome measure Timing of follow-up Rating Direction of Effect Effect size (absolute value) Stastical significance Sample size Sample description

Any substantiated maltreatment report

15-month follow-up

High
0.30

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

1157 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Loss of custody

15-month follow-up

High
0.08

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

1039 mothers

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Child health
Outcome measure Timing of follow-up Rating Direction of Effect Effect size (absolute value) Stastical significance Sample size Sample description

Primary care provider for the child (%)

15-month follow-up

High
0.02

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

939 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Number of Medicaid-paid immunizations

15-month follow-up

High

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

895 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Any Medicaid-paid nonbirth hospitalizations

15-month follow-up

High
0.26

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

1105 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Underweight (%)

15-month follow-up

High
0.04

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

747 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Normal weight (%)

15-month follow-up

High
0.13

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

747 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

At risk of being overweight (%)

15-month follow-up

High
0.13

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

747 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

Duration of breastfeeding

15-month follow-up

High

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

918 children

NFP vs. Resource referral RCT (MIHOPE), 2012-2015, United States,full sample

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
24%
Hispanic or Latino
48%
White
17%
Unknown
10%

Maternal Education

Less than a high school diploma
41%
High school diploma or GED
59%

Other Characteristics

Enrollment in means-tested programs
58%