Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting®
Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting® (MECSH) is a nurse home visiting program designed for families with children under age 2 who are at risk of poor maternal or child health and development outcomes. MECSH aims to support (1) the transition to parenthood, (2) maternal health and wellbeing, (3) child health and wellbeing, (4) parents’ future goals and aspirations, and (5) social relationships and networks, including access to social services and other resources.
MECSH has core components and activities that comprise the program and allows sites customize certain aspects of delivery to fit their local service system and match local needs. For example, each site works with the developer of the MECSH program to create their own plan for implementation, or “service schedule,” where they specify which parent education program, assessments and screenings, and additional modules they will deliver. MECSH always includes a team of nurse home visitors, clinical supervisors, a nurse coordinator, a social worker, and administrative staff. This team implements MECSH through three main activities: nurse home visiting, MECSH group activities, and integration with other services and supports.
Nurse home visiting includes in-home comprehensive care for families starting during pregnancy (or up to 8 weeks after the newborn’s hospital discharge) and continuing until the child turns two. Nurses provide proactive counseling and ongoing support for families centered on the following topics: child health and development, maternal well-being and mental health, personal and community relationships, family aspirations, and goal setting. Nurses tailor each session to the child’s age and development and the parent’s needs, skills, and strengths. Nurses routinely conduct assessments and screenings designed to identify the family’s changing needs and strengths over time. During the first year of the child’s life, nurses deliver a structured parent education program focused on the child’s cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development. MECSH recommends the Learning to Communicate parenting curriculum, but sites can select any standardized parenting education curriculum with approval from the MECSH developer.
MECSH group activities include community groups, events, and peer support. These activities may include play groups, breastfeeding support groups, or stroller walks. Nurses connect families to these group activities, but groups can be led by members of the community, the MECSH team, or MECSH parents. The MECSH program typically facilitates general parenting groups and parenting groups focused on a specific skill or activity. MECSH may limit these groups to MECSH families or may invite other members of the community to join as well.
MECSH integrated support services include community-based support for both the family and the nurses themselves. The MECSH team works closely with practitioners from the local maternal, child, and family services system (such as social workers, perinatal psychiatrists, dieticians, and drug and alcohol counselors) to help address families’ unique needs. Nurses educate families about and provide referrals to services, while also receiving support from the service practitioners about how best to assist the family. For example, nurses may work with a speech pathologist to learn how to support a family concerned about their child’s speech and language development and may refer the family to that same speech pathologist if needed.
MECSH is rated as a supported practice because at least one study carried out in a usual care or practice setting achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution and demonstrated a sustained favorable effect of at least 6 months beyond the end of treatment on at least one target outcome.
Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: Nov 2023
Sources
The following sources informed the program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, and the studies reviewed.
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, visit the download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0
Target Population
MECSH is designed for families with children under age 2 who are at risk of poor maternal or child health and development outcomes.
Dosage
MECSH is designed to provide a minimum of 25 home visits for families who enroll prenatally and 22 visits for families who enroll postnatally. Families who enroll prenatally receive at least three 30–60-minute visits before the child is born.
After the child is born, all families receive at least weekly 60–90-minute visits until the child is 6 weeks old, then 60–90-minute visits every 2 weeks until the child is 12 weeks old, then 30–60-minute visits every 3 weeks until the child is 6 months old, and then 60–90-minute visits every 6 weeks until the child is 1 year old. During the first year of the child’s life, these visits include the delivery of the structured parent education program which takes place over at least 11 monthly sessions. After the first year, families receive 60–90-minute visits every other month until the child is 2 years old.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
Nurses typically deliver home visiting services in the home but can also deliver them via phone or online. The MECSH team can deliver group activities and integrated support services in the home or in community settings.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- Home
Education, Certifications and Training
Nurses providing home visits must be registered nurses with a bachelor’s degree or equivalent and must have experience with child and family health nursing. Clinical supervisors must be formally trained in or have extensive experience with reflective clinical practice, which is a process of contemplating experiences while they are happening and afterwards.
All program staff must complete at least two online courses on the MECSH model prior to providing services. Nurses and supervisors are required to complete all six MECSH online courses within the first six months of when they begin administering the program. The MECSH courses provide an overview of the model, core principles for working in partnership with families, professional and self-care strategies, advanced nursing practice principles, role of groups, and working with a multidisciplinary team as a system of care.
Nurses and supervisors must also participate in a pre-service training after completion of the first three online courses. The MECSH program typically delivers the pre-service training in person but may deliver the training virtually. For nurses, the pre-service training includes 30 hours of training over 5 days on the components and delivery of MECSH. Nurses also complete training on the Foundation Family Partnership model and the parent education program model selected by their program site. Supervisors participate in a 1-day training on the model’s clinical supervision techniques.
Program sites must be licensed to deliver MECSH and receive a 3-year implementation support package consisting of technical assistance and fidelity monitoring. Each program site receives their own “service schedule” outlining how they will implement MECSH and an addendum that documents program implementation guidelines and expectations for their specific site. Sites also must complete agreements or memoranda of understanding with other service providers for the assessment and treatment of needs that cannot be addressed by MECSH nurses.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Kemp, L., Harris, E., McMahon, C., Matthey, S., Vimpani, G., Anderson, T., Schmied, V., & Aslam, H. (2012). Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) program manual. (2nd ed.). Centre for Health Equity Training Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales.
Available languages
MECSH materials are available in English and Spanish.
Other supporting materials
MECSH Service System Requirements
For More Information
Website: https://www.earlychildhoodconnect.edu.au/home-visiting-programs/mecsh-public/about-mecsh
Email: tresi@westernsydney.edu.au
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting® |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 18 |
| Eligible for Review | 2 |
| Rated High | 1 |
| Rated Moderate | 1 |
| Rated Low | 0 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities |
0.30
11 |
1 (6) | 590 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Physical development and health |
-0.29
-11 |
1 (2) | 589 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 1 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.15
5 |
2 (12) | 710 |
Favorable:
5 No Effect: 7 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.08
3 |
2 (23) | 704 |
Favorable:
5 No Effect: 18 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use |
-0.07
-2 |
1 (2) | 635 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.05
2 |
2 (4) | 707 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health |
0.11
4 |
2 (7) | 693 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 6 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability |
-0.05
-2 |
1 (3) | 581 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group.
| Outcome | Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities |
0.30
11 |
1 (6) | 590 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2019) | |||||
| Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile™ Infant-Toddler Checklist: Engages in Pretend Play |
0.31
12 |
- | 589 | - | 0 |
| Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile™ Infant-Toddler Checklist: Puts 2 Words Together |
0.22
8 |
- | 587 | - | 0 |
| Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile™ Infant-Toddler Checklist: Nods to Indicate Yes |
0.12
4 |
- | 581 | - | 0 |
| Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile™ Infant-Toddler Checklist: Waves to Greet People |
0.08
3 |
- | 584 | - | 0 |
| Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile™ Infant-Toddler Checklist: Gets Mother to Notice Things |
0.45
17 |
- | 590 | - | 0 |
| Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile™ Infant-Toddler Checklist: Does Things To Get Mother To Laugh |
0.63
*
23 |
- | 586 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Physical development and health |
-0.29
-11 |
1 (2) | 589 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 1 |
- |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2019) | |||||
| Short Form Six-Dimension: Global Health (Child) |
-0.08
-3 |
- | 588 | - | 0 |
| Ate Breakfast Today |
-0.50
*
-19 |
- | 589 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.15
5 |
2 (12) | 710 |
Favorable:
5 No Effect: 7 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2019) | |||||
| Regular Meal Times |
-0.08
-3 |
- | 584 | - | 0 |
| Regular Bedtime |
0.34
*
13 |
- | 587 | - | 0 |
| Regular Bed Routine |
0.20
7 |
- | 587 | - | 0 |
| Child Rearing Questionnaire: Warm Parenting |
0.21
*
8 |
- | 582 | - | 0 |
| Hostile Parenting |
0.24
*
9 |
- | 588 | - | 0 |
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment – Infant/Toddler Version: Parental Responsivity |
0.02
0 |
- | 546 | - | 0 |
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment – Infant/Toddler Version: Acceptance of the Child |
-0.05
-1 |
- | 545 | - | 0 |
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment – Infant/Toddler Version: Organization of the Environment |
0.11
4 |
- | 577 | - | 0 |
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment – Infant/Toddler Version: Learning Materials |
-0.08
-3 |
- | 578 | - | 0 |
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment – Infant/Toddler Version: Parental Involvement |
0.23
*
8 |
- | 577 | - | 0 |
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment – Infant/Toddler Version: Variety in Experience |
0.19
*
7 |
- | 578 | - | 0 |
| Study 14959 - MECSH vs. Treatment As Usual (Kemp, 2011) | |||||
| Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment – Infant/Toddler Version: Organization of Environment |
0.26
10 |
- | 122 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.08
3 |
2 (23) | 704 |
Favorable:
5 No Effect: 18 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2019) | |||||
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: Depression |
-0.04
-1 |
- | 573 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: Anxiety |
0.07
2 |
- | 574 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: Stress |
0.10
3 |
- | 573 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: Overall |
0.05
1 |
- | 572 | - | 0 |
| Personal Wellbeing Index – Adult |
0.04
1 |
- | 559 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Efficacy |
0.13
5 |
- | 587 | - | 0 |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2021) | |||||
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Total Score |
0.25
*
9 |
- | 487 | - | 12 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Depression |
0.20
*
7 |
- | 488 | - | 12 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Anxiety |
0.17
6 |
- | 488 | - | 12 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Stress |
0.23
*
9 |
- | 489 | - | 12 |
| Personal Wellbeing Index – Adult |
0.17
6 |
- | 475 | - | 12 |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2022) | |||||
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Depression |
0.17
6 |
- | 460 | - | 24 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Anxiety |
0.08
3 |
- | 460 | - | 24 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Stress |
0.10
3 |
- | 460 | - | 24 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Total Score |
0.13
5 |
- | 458 | - | 24 |
| Personal Wellbeing Index – Adult |
0.21
*
8 |
- | 451 | - | 24 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Depression |
0.08
3 |
- | 420 | - | 36 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Anxiety |
0.01
0 |
- | 418 | - | 36 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Stress |
0.09
3 |
- | 421 | - | 36 |
| Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 Items: Total Score |
0.08
3 |
- | 417 | - | 36 |
| Personal Wellbeing Index – Adult |
0.22
*
8 |
- | 411 | - | 36 |
| Study 14959 - MECSH vs. Treatment As Usual (Kemp, 2011) | |||||
| Short Form-12: Mental Health |
-0.09
-3 |
- | 117 | - | 0 |
| Short Form-12: Mental Health |
-0.15
-5 |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use |
-0.07
-2 |
1 (2) | 635 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2019) | |||||
| Does Not Smoke (Year 1 Follow-Up) |
-0.02
0 |
- | 635 | - | 0 |
| Does Not Smoke |
-0.12
-4 |
- | 587 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.05
2 |
2 (4) | 707 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2019) | |||||
| Short-Form Six-Dimension: Very Good/Excellent Relationship with Child |
0.07
2 |
- | 591 | - | 0 |
| Study 14959 - MECSH vs. Treatment As Usual (Kemp, 2011) | |||||
| McMaster Family Assessment Device |
0.07
2 |
- | 116 | - | 0 |
| McMaster Family Assessment Device |
0.23
9 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| McMaster Family Assessment Device |
-0.19
-7 |
- | 96 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health |
0.11
4 |
2 (7) | 693 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 6 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2019) | |||||
| Short Form Six-Dimension: Global Health (Mother) |
0.31
*
12 |
- | 575 | - | 0 |
| Assessment of Quality of Life – 8D |
-0.03
-1 |
- | 571 | - | 0 |
| Study 14959 - MECSH vs. Treatment As Usual (Kemp, 2011) | |||||
| Short Form-12: General Health |
-0.22
-8 |
- | 118 | - | 0 |
| Short Form-12: General Health |
-0.06
-2 |
- | 107 | - | 0 |
| Short Form-12: Physical Health |
0.04
1 |
- | 117 | - | 0 |
| Short Form-12: Physical Health |
0.17
6 |
- | 106 | - | 0 |
| Short Form-12: Physical Health |
0.01
0 |
- | 97 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability |
-0.05
-2 |
1 (3) | 581 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2019) | |||||
| Employed |
-0.13
-5 |
- | 581 | - | 0 |
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC (Goldfeld, 2022) | |||||
| Employed |
0.06
2 |
- | 463 | - | 24 |
| Employed |
-0.08
-3 |
- | 423 | - | 36 |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Age or Grade-level
|
Race, Ethnicity, Nationality
|
Gender
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
| Study 14956 - MECSH vs UC | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Victoria and Tasmania, Australia | 2013 | -- | -- | 51% Female Sex | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Victoria and Tasmania, Australia | 2013 | Mean age of mothers: 27.7 years | -- | -- |
100% Parents; 100% Pregnant women; 25% Single, not living with partner; 11% Experienced domestic violence in past year |
64% Currently unemployed |
| Study 14959 - MECSH vs. Treatment As Usual | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Sydney, Australia | 2004 | Age range: 0-2 years | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Sydney, Australia | 2004 | Average age: 28 years; Age range: 15-45 years |
51% Born in Australia 49% Born overseas (31 different countries worldwide) |
100% Women |
100% Mothers, 31% First-time mothers, 7% Mothers under age 19; 43% Experienced antenatal psychological distress assessed as an Edinburgh Depression Scale score of 10 or more; 28% Reported mental health problem or disorder; 2% Reported substance misuse; 17% Single/separated/divorced; 7% Experienced domestic violence; 12% Abused as a child |
70% Main source of household income is full or part-time wages |
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated High
Study 14956Goldfeld, S., Price, A., Smith, C., Bruce, T., Bryson, H., Mensah, F., Orsini, F., Gold, L., Hiscock, H., Bishop, L., Smith, A., Perlen, S., & Kemp, L. (2019). Nurse home visiting for families experiencing adversity: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 143(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1206
Goldfeld, S., Price, A., Bryson, H., Bruce, T., Mensah, F., Orsini, F., Gold, L., Hiscock, H., Smith, C., Bishop, L., Jackson, D., & Kemp, L. (2017). 'right@home': a randomised controlled trial of sustained nurse home visiting from pregnancy to child age 2-years, versus usual care, to improve parent care, parent responsivity and the home learning environment at 2-years. BMJ Open, 7(3), Article e013307. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013307
Goldfeld, S., Price, A., & Kemp, L. (2018). Designing, testing, and implementing a sustainable nurse home visiting program: right@home. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1419(1), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13688
Bryson, H. E., Goldfeld, S., Price, A., & Mensah, F. (2019). Hair cortisol as a measure of the stress response to social adversity in young children. Developmental Psychobiology, 61(4), 525-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21840
Kemp, L., Bruce, T., Elcombe, E. L., Anderson, T., Vimpani, G., Price, A. M., Smith, C., & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Quality of delivery of "right@home": Implementation evaluation of an Australian sustained nurse home visiting intervention to improve parenting and the home learning environment. PloS one, 14(5), Article e0215371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215371
Bryson, H. E., Mensah, F., Goldfeld, S., & Price, A. M. H. (2020). Using hair cortisol to examine the role of stress in children's health inequalities at 3 years. Academic Pediatrics, 20(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2019.05.008
Bryson, H., Mensah, F., Price, A., Gold, L., Mudiyanselage, S. B., Kenny, B., Dakin, P., Bruce, T., Noble, K., Kemp, L., & Goldfeld, S. (2021). Clinical, financial and social impacts of COVID-19 and their associations with mental health for mothers and children experiencing adversity in Australia. PloS One, 16(9), Article e0257357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257357
Egan, K. A., Xuan, Z., & Silverstein, M. (2021). Realizing the potential of nurse home visiting. Pediatrics, 147(2), Article e2020032565. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-032565
Goldfeld, S., Bryson, H., Mensah, F., Gold, L., Orsini, F., Perlen, S., Price, A., Hiscock, H., Grobler, A., Dakin, P., Bruce, T., Harris, D., & Kemp, L. (2021). Nurse home visiting and maternal mental health: 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 147(2), Article e2020025361. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-025361
Goldfeld, S., Bryson, H., Mensah, F., Price, A., Gold, L., Orsini, F., Kenny, B., Perlen, S., Bohingamu Mudiyanselage, S., Dakin, P., Bruce, T., Harris, D., & Kemp, L. (2022). Nurse home visiting to improve child and maternal outcomes: 5-year follow-up of an Australian randomised controlled trial. PloS One, 17(11), Article e0277773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277773
Kemp, L., Bruce, T., Elcombe, E. L., Byrne, F., Scharkie, S. A., Perlen, S. M., & Goldfeld, S. R. (2022). Identification of families in need of support: Correlates of adverse childhood experiences in the right@home sustained nurse home visiting program. PloS One, 17(10), Article e0275423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275423
Price, A., Mudiyanselage, S. B., Schembri, R., Mensah, F., Kemp, L., Harris, D., & Goldfeld, S. (2022). The impact of nurse home visiting on the use, dose and quality of formal childcare: 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Academic Pediatrics, 22(2), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2021.07.022
Price, A., Bryson, H., Mensah, F., Kemp, L., Smith, C., Orsini, F., Hiscock, H., Gold, L., Smith, A., Bishop, L., & Goldfeld, S. (2019). A brief survey to identify pregnant women experiencing increased psychosocial and socioeconomic risk. Women and Birth, 32(3), e351–e358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2018.08.162
Kanda, K., Blythe, S., Grace, R., Elcombe, E., & Kemp, L. (2022a). Does customised care improve satisfaction and positively enable parents in sustained home visiting for mothers and children experiencing adversity? BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), Article 1361. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08759-9
Kanda, K., Blythe, S., Grace, R., Elcombe, E., & Kemp, L. (2022b). Variations in sustained home visiting care for mothers and children experiencing adversity. Public Health Nursing, 39(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.13014
Smith, J., Levickis, P., Goldfeld, S., Kemp, L., & Conway, L. (2021a). Maternal linguistic input and child language in a cohort at risk of experiencing social adversity. Language Learning and Development, 17(3), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1875831.
Smith, J., Levickis, P., Neilson, R., Mensah, F., Goldfeld, S., & Bryson, H. (2021b). Prevalence of language and pre-literacy difficulties in an Australian cohort of 5-year-old children experiencing adversity. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 56(2), 389-401. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12611
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Moderate
Study 14959Kemp, L., Harris, E., McMahon, C., Matthey, S., Vimpani, G., Anderson, T., Schmied, V., Aslam, H., & Zapart, S. (2011). Child and family outcomes of a long-term nurse home visitation programme: A randomised controlled trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 96(6), 533-540. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2010.196279
Kemp, L., Harris, E., McMahon, C., Matthey, S., Vimpani, G., Anderson, T., & Schmied, V. (2008). Miller Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) trial: Design, method and sample description. BMC Public Health, 8(1), Article 424. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-424
Kemp, L., Harris, E., McMahon, C., Matthey, S., Vimpani, G., Anderson, T., Schmied, V., & Aslam, H. (2013). Benefits of psychosocial intervention and continuity of care by child and family health nurses in the pre- and postnatal period: Process evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(8), 1850-1861. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12052
Short, K., Eadie, P., & Kemp, L. (2019). Paths to language development in at risk children: A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). BMC Pediatrics, 19(1), Article 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1449-z
Short, K., Eadie, P., & Kemp, L. (2020). Influential factor combinations leading to language outcomes following a home visiting intervention: A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 55(6), 936-954. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12573 https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12573
Zapart, S., Knight, J., & Kemp, L. (2016). 'It was easier because I had help': Mothers' reflections on the long-term impact of sustained nurse home visiting. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20, 196-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-015-1819-6
Kemp, L. & Harris, E. (2012). The challenges of establishing and researching a sustained nurse home visiting programme within the universal child and family health service system. Journal of Research in Nursing, 17(2), 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987111432228
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 14949
Bair-Merritt, M. H., Jennings, J. M., Chen, R., Burrell, L., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., & Duggan, A. K. (2010). Reducing maternal intimate partner violence after the birth of a child: A randomized controlled trial of the Hawaii Healthy Start Home Visitation Program. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.237
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14950
Cluxton-Keller, F., Donnelly, C. L., Williams, M., Buteau, J., Stolte, P., Monroe-Cassel, M., & Bruce, M. L. (2017). An implementation-effectiveness hybrid trial of video-based family therapy for peripartum depression in home visited mothers: A protocol for a pilot trial. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 3, Article 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-017-0203-2
Cluxton-Keller, F., Williams, M., Buteau, J., Donnelly, C. L., Stolte, P., Monroe-Cassel, M., & Bruce, M. L. (2018). Video-delivered family therapy for home visited young mothers with perinatal depressive symptoms: Quasi-experimental implementation-effectiveness hybrid trial. JMIR Mental Health, 5(4), Article e11513. https://doi.org/10.2196/11513
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14951
Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Olds, D., & Sidora, K. (1998). Family context as a moderator of program effects in prenatal and early childhood home visitation. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199801)26:1%3C37::AID-JCOP4%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr, Hanks, C., Cole, R., Tatelbaum, R., McConnochie, K. M., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W., Shaver, D., Engelhardt, K., James, D., & Barnard, K. (1997). Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 278(8), 644–652. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550080054039
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14952
Davis, R. A., & Travers Gustafson, D. (2015). Academic-practice partnership in public health nursing: Working with families in a village-based collaboration. Public Health Nursing, 32(4), 327-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12135
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14953
Denmark, N., Peplinski, K., Sparr, M., Labiner-Wolfe, J., Zaid, S., Gupta, P., & Miller, K. M. (2018a). Introduction to the special issue on taking home visiting to scale: Findings from the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program state-led evaluations. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 22 (Suppl 1), Article S114., S1-S2. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2539-5
Denmark, N., Peplinski, K., Sparr, M., Labiner-Wolfe, J., Zaid, S., Gupta, P., & Miller, K. M. (2018b). Correction to: Introduction to the special issue on taking home visiting to scale: Findings from the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program state-led evaluations. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 22(1), 114-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2616-9
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14954
Folger, A. T., Brentley, A. L., Goyal, N. K., Hall, E. S., Sa, T., Peugh, J. L., Teeters, A. R., Van Ginkel, J. B. & Ammerman, R. T. (2016). Evaluation of a community-based approach to strengthen retention in early childhood home visiting. Prevention Science, 17(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0600-9
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14955
Folger, A. T., Bowers, K. A., Dexheimer, J. W., Sa, T., Hall, E. S., Van Ginkel, J. B., & Ammerman, R. T. (2017). Evaluation of early childhood home visiting to prevent medically attended unintentional injury. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 70(3), 302-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.029
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14957
Heaman, M., Chalmers, K., Woodgate, R., & Brown, J. (2006). Early childhood home visiting programme: Factors contributing to success. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55(3), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03914.x
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14958
Kemp, L., Eisbacher, L., McIntyre, L., O’Sullivan, K., Taylor, J., Clark, T., & Harris, E. (2006). Working in partnership in the antenatal period: What do child and family health nurses do? Contemporary Nurse, 23(2), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2006.23.2.312
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 14961
Kemp, L., Bruce, T., & Byrne, F. (2016). Parenting effectively despite: The Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting program. Australian Nursing & Midwifery Journal, 24(2), 43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29240393/
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 14962
Kemp, L., Grace, R., Comino, E., Jackson Pulver, L., McMahon, C., Harris, E., Harris, M., George, A., & Mack, H. A. (2018). The effectiveness of a sustained nurse home visiting intervention for Aboriginal infants compared with non-Aboriginal infants and with Aboriginal infants receiving usual child health care: A quasi-experimental trial - the Bulundidi Gudaga study. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3394-1
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14963
Khang, Y. H., Cho, S. H., June, K. J., Lee, J. Y., Kim, Y. M., & Cho, H. J. (2018). The Seoul Healthy First Step Project: Introduction and expansion, program content and performance, and future challenges. Journal of the Korean Society of Maternal and Child Health, 22(2), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.21896/jksmch.2018.22.2.63
This study is ineligible for review because it is not available in English (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.3).
Study 14964
Korfmacher, J., Green, B., Spellmann, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2007). The helping relationship and program participation in early childhood home visiting. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28(5), 459-480. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20148
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14967
Price, S. K., & Coles, D. C. (2019). Clusters of behavioral health and psychosocial risk for childbearing women in four Virginia communities. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 23(3), 287-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-02720-1
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14971
Stabile, I., & Grahm, M. (2000, June 28–July 1). Florida Panhandle Healthy Start: A randomized trial of prenatal home visitation [Paper presentation]. Head Start National Research Conference, Washington, D.C. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444747
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 14972
Thomson, J. L., Goodman, M. H., Tussing-Humphreys, L. M., & Landry, A. S. (2018). Infant growth outcomes from birth to 12 months of age: Findings from the Delta Healthy Sprouts randomized comparative impact trial. Obesity Science and Practice, 4(4), 299-307. https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.272
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).