Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 25–35 | Cite as

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Healthy Families: 6-Month and 1-Year Follow-Up

  • Craig Winston LeCroyEmail author
  • Darlene Lopez
Article

Abstract

Home visitation research remains on the forefront as policy makers look to evidence for programs they believe are worthy of investment, particularly in terms of child abuse prevention. A randomized controlled trial (N = 245) of the Healthy Families Arizona home visitation program was conducted. Outcomes were assessed across several key domains related to child abuse and neglect: safety and resources, parenting attitudes and behaviors, health and maternal outcomes, and mental health and coping. Findings revealed significant differences between the groups at both 6-month and 1-year follow-up assessments on use of resources, mobilizing resources, home environment, subsequent pregnancy, positive affect, and problem solving favoring the Healthy Families group. A significant difference was also found between the groups on total violence measured at the 1-year follow-up favoring the Healthy Families group. A qualitative linguistic inquiry and word count analysis was conducted of parent’s descriptions of their children and their parenting experiences. Results again revealed significant differences between the groups in narrative descriptions that favored the Healthy Families group. Implications of these findings are discussed in light of the existing evidence for home visitation programs.

Keywords

Home visitation Child abuse and neglect Prevention Randomized trial Quantitative Evidence-based practice Mixed methods Community-based research Program evaluation Outcome study 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by the Rigorous Evaluation of Existing Child Abuse Prevention Programs, Children’s Bureau, Award 90CA178.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All assessments and procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ammerman, R., Putnam, F., Altaye, M., Stevens, J., Teeters, A., & Ginkel, J. (2013). A clinical trial of in-home CBT for depressed mothers in home visitation. Behavior Therapy, 44, 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azzi-Lessing, L. (2017). Behind from the start: How America’s war on the poor is harming our most vulnerable children. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, A., Varipatis-Baker, E., Speakman, K., Ginsburg, G., Friberg, I., Goklish, N., & Walkup, J. (2006). Home-visiting intervention to improve child care among American Indian adolescent mothers. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 1101–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldera, D., Burrell, L., Rodriguez, K., Crowne, S. S., Rohde, C., & Duggan, A. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program on parenting and on child health and development. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 829–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coohey, C. (1996). Child maltreatment: Testing the social isolation hypothesis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deal, L. W., Gomby, D. S., Zippiroli, L., & Behrman, R. E. (2000). Unintentional injuries in childhood: Analysis and recommendations. Future of Children, 10, 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiTommaso, E., & Spinner, B. (1993). The development and initial validation of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA). Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duggan, A., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S. M., Windham, A., & Sia, C. (2004). Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program: Impact in preventing child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 597–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duggan, A., Caldera, D., Rodriguez, K., Burrell, L., & Crowne, S. S. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visi'ng program to prevent child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 801–827.Google Scholar
  10. DuMont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Greene, R., Lee, E., Lowenfels, A., & Rodriguez, M. (2008). Healthy FamiliesNew York (HFNY) randomized trial: Effects on early child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32 (3), 295–315.Google Scholar
  11. Dumville, J.C., Hahn, S., Miles, J.N.V., & Torgerson, D.J. (2006). The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: A review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 27, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliot, L. K., & Flanagan, K. (2004). Growing great kids™ an interactive parenting and child development curriculum. Louisville: Great Kids, Inc..Google Scholar
  13. Filene, J., Kaminski, J., Valle, L., & Cachat, P. (2013). Components associated with home visiting program outcomes: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132, S100–S109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibaud-Wallston, J., & Wandersman, L. P. (1978). Development and utility of the parenting sense of competence scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.Google Scholar
  15. Green, B. L., Tarte, J. M., Harrison, P. M., Nygren, M., & Sanders, M. B. (2014). Results from a randomized trial of the Healthy Families Oregon accredited statewide program: Early program impacts on parenting. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 288–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harding, K., Reid, R., Oshana, D. & Holton, J., (2004). Initial results of the HFA implementation study. Chicago, IL: National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research, Prevent Child Abuse America.Google Scholar
  17. Healthy Families American (2014). HFA critical elements. Retrieved from https://www.in.gov/des/files/HFI_Attachment_A_criticalelements.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018.
  18. HFA (2017). HFA news of note, March 2017, No. 19. Retrieved from: https://static1.sq.
  19. Horta, B. L., & Victora, C. G. (2013). Long-term effects of breastfeeding: A systematic review. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  20. Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, F., Easterbrooks, M. A., Goldberg, J., Mistry, J., Bumgarner, E., Raskin, M., et al. (2015). Improving adolescent parenting: Results from a randomized controlled trial of a home visiting program for young families. American Journal of Public Health, 106, 342–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krysik, J., & LeCroy, C. W. (2012). The development and initial validation of an outcome measure for home visitation: The Healthy Families Parenting Inventory. Infant Mental Health, 33, 496–505.Google Scholar
  23. Krysik, J., LeCroy, C. W., & Ashford, J. B. (2008). Participants’ perceptions of healthy families: A home visitation program to prevent child abuse and neglect. Child and Youth Services Review, 30, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. LeCroy, Craig W., & Krysik, J. (2010). Measurement Issues in home visitation. Child and Youth Services Review, 32, 1483-1486.Google Scholar
  25. LeCroy, C. W., & Krysik, J. (2011). Randomized trial of the Healthy Families Arizona home visiting program. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1761–1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LeCroy, C. W., & Davis, M. F. (2016). Randomized trial of Healthy Families Arizona: Quantitative and qualitative outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice, 33, 1761–1766.Google Scholar
  27. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Matone, M., O’Reilly, A. L. R., Luan, X., Localio, A. R., & Rubin, D. M. (2012). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations for injuries among infants and children following statewide implementation of a home visitation model. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16, 1754–1761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nievar, M. A., Van Egern, L. A., & Pollard, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of home visiting programs: Moderators of improvements in maternal behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 31, 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olds, D. (2005). Clarifying the impact of the nurse-family partnership on child maltreatment: Response to Chaffin. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olds, D., Henderson, C., Kitzman, H., Eckenrode, J., Cole, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1999). Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses: Recent findings. Future of Children, 9, 44–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count:LIWC (2007). Austin: LIWC.Google Scholar
  33. Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York: Bloomsbury Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prevent Child Abuse America (2000). Implementing program services. Retrieved from http://www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org/downloads/sdg5.pdf.
  35. Rausch, McCord, Batista, & Anisfeld, E. (2012). Latino immigrant children’s health: Effects of sociodemographic variables and a preventive intervention program. International Journal of Population Research, 2012, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/250276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodriguez, M. L., Dumont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. D., Walden, N. J., & Greene, R. (2010). Effects of healthy Families New York on the promotion of maternal parenting competencies and the prevention of harsh parenting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 711–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rude, S. S., Gortner, E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1121–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandy, J. M., Anisfeld, E., & Ramirez, E. (2009). Effects of a prenatal intervention on breastfeeding initiation rates in a Latina immigrant sample. Journal of Human Lactation, 25, 404–411.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334409337308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et al. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ware Jr., J. E., Gandek, B., & IQOLA Project Group. (1994). The SF-36 Health Survey: Development and use in mental health research and the IQOLA project. International Journal of Mental Health, 23, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State University, School of Social WorkTucsonUSA
  2. 2.LeCroy & Milligan AssociatesTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations