Nurse-Family Partnership

Target Population

NFP is intended to serve young, first-time, low-income mothers from early pregnancy through their child’s first two years. Though the program primarily focuses on mothers and children, NFP also encourages the participation of fathers and other family members.

Dosage

Mothers enroll early in their pregnancy (no later than the 28^th week of gestation) and may continue with the program until their child turns two. During this time NFP aims for 60 visits that last approximately 60-75 minutes each. During the first month after enrollment, nurses visit mothers weekly. After the first month, the visits continue on a biweekly basis or as-needed.

Location/Delivery Setting

Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

NFP is delivered through one-on-one visits in the home or a location of the mother’s choice.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

• Home

Education, Certifications and Training

Registered nurses with a bachelor’s degree or higher typically deliver NFP. They are required to complete all educational sessions with the NFP National Service Office (NSO). In-person and online trainings provide guidance on how to implement the program model with fidelity. They also provide guidance on how nurses can successfully develop therapeutic relationships with mothers. NFP nurses also participate in ongoing, regular meetings with staff members and NSO supervisors.

Program or Service Documentation

Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

Nurse Family Partnership. (2020). Visit-to-visit guidelines.

Available languages

NFP training materials are offered in both English and Spanish.

Other supporting materials

Overview

Guiding Theories

Training Information

For More Information

Website: https://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/

Phone: (866) 864-5226

Email: support@nursefamilypartnership.org

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 Nurse-Family Partnership
Identified in Search	32
Eligible for Review	10
Rated High	2
Rated Moderate	5
Rated Low	3
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 safety: Child welfare administrative reports	-0.13 -5	2 (2)	1277	Favorable: 1 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 1
Child safety: Maltreatment risk assessment	0.16 6	1 (2)	1000	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0
Child safety: Medical indicators of maltreatment risk	-0.14 -5	3 (10)	196976	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 5
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.21 8	1 (7)	417	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 7 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities	0.23 8	2 (13)	1353	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Physical development and health	0.03 1	3 (16)	111412	Favorable: 5 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment	-0.09 -3	1 (5)	396	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 1
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.18 7	1 (1)	407	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health	0.06 2	1 (8)	1121	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use	0.00 0	2 (3)	1733	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.03 1	2 (2)	1470	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health	-0.02 0	2 (8)	2668	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability	0.06 2	2 (12)	1574	Favorable: 1 No Effect: 11 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. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

Outcome	Effect Size and Implied Percentile Effect	N of Studies (Findings)	N of Participants	Summary of Findings	Months after treatment when outcome measured
Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports	-0.13 -5	2 (2)	1277	Favorable: 1 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 1	-
Study 10180 - NFP vs. Business As Usual (Mejdoubi, 2015)
Child Protective Services (CPS) report	0.39 * 15	-	332	-	12
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
Safeguarding Procedure Initiated	-0.37 * -14	-	945	-	0
Child safety: Maltreatment risk assessment	0.16 6	1 (2)	1000	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
Child Safety Scale (24 months post-birth)	0.14 5	-	1000	-	0
Child Safety Scale (12 months post-birth)	0.18 6	-	918	-	0
Child safety: Medical indicators of maltreatment risk	-0.14 -5	3 (10)	196976	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 5	-
Study 10177 - NFP vs. Business As Usual (Matone, 2012 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting)
Injury Episodes (first two years of life)	-0.11 * -4	-	21720	-	0
Non-injury ER Department Visits (first two years of life)	-0.10 * -3	-	21720	-	0
Any Observed Injury (first two years of life)	-0.15 * -6	-	21720	-	0
Study 10179 - NFP vs. Business As Usual (Matone, 2018)
Child Abuse Episodes	-0.17 * -6	-	173769	-	0
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
At Least One Emergency Attendance or Admission (during program)	-0.17 * -6	-	1478	-	0
Primary Care Consultation for Injuries and Ingestions	0.08 3	-	932	-	0
Accident and Emergency Department Visit for Injuries and Ingestions	-0.25 -10	-	1486	-	0
Accident and Emergency Department Visit for Injuries and Ingestions	-0.09 -3	-	1465	-	0
Hospital Visit for Injuries and Ingestions (6 months post-birth)	0.14 5	-	1487	-	0
Hospital Visit for Injuries and Ingestions (24 months post-birth)	0.20 7	-	1467	-	0
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.21 8	1 (7)	417	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 7 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2002)
Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problem Behavior	Null not calculated	-	417	-	0
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2004)
Behavioral Adaptation Composite (Researcher Observation)	-0.01 0	-	407	-	24
Emotional Regulation Composite Score	-0.01 0	-	407	-	24
Child Behavior Checklist - Externalizing Problems	0.01 0	-	407	-	24
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2014)
Child Behavior Checklist: % of Children With Behavior Problems (Parent and Teacher Report)	0.51 19	-	345	-	48
Child Behavior Checklist: % of Children With Internalizing Problems (Parent and Teacher Report)	0.55 20	-	345	-	48
Child Behavior Checklist: % of Children With Externalizing Problems (Parent and Teacher Report)	0.19 7	-	345	-	48
Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities	0.23 8	2 (13)	1353	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2002)
Preschool Language Scale-3: % With Language Delay	0.44 17	-	406	-	0
Preschool Language Scale-3: Language Development Score	Null not calculated	-	406	-	0
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2004)
Preschool Language Scale-3: Language Development Score	0.04 1	-	407	-	24
Executive Function	Null not calculated	-	407	-	24
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2014)
% of Children with Attention Dysfunction (Composite Measure)	0.68 25	-	353	-	84
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Receptive Language	0.03 1	-	395	-	48
Leiter Sustained Attention Scale	-0.01 0	-	389	-	48
Leiter Sustained Attention Scale	0.01 0	-	370	-	84
Trail Making Test Part B: Visual Attention/Task Switching Errors	0.21 * 8	-	368	-	84
Digit Span Task: Working Memory Errors	-0.01 0	-	362	-	84
Kaufman Assessment Battery: Mental Processing Composite Score	0.03 1	-	396	-	48
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
Cognitive Development Concern	0.32 12	-	946	-	0
Language Development Concern	0.25 * 9	-	945	-	0
Child well-being: Physical development and health	0.03 1	3 (16)	111412	Favorable: 5 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10166 - NFP vs. Enhanced Usual Care (Kitzman, 1997)
% of Children With Low Birth Weight (<2500g)	-0.06 -2	-	1126	-	0
5-minute Apgar Score	Null not calculated	-	1126	-	0
% of Children Delivered Preterm (<37 Weeks)	0.14 5	-	1126	-	0
% Indicated Pre-Term Delivery	0.00 0	-	1126	-	0
% Spontaneous Pre-Term Delivery	0.14 5	-	1126	-	0
Number of Yeast Infections	Favorable * not calculated	-	1130	-	0
Number of Sexually Transmitted Diseases	Null not calculated	-	1130	-	0
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
Birthweight	0.03 1	-	1510	-	0
Normal Apgar Score at 1 Minute	0.08 3	-	1510	-	0
Normal Apgar Score at 5 Minutes	-0.06 -2	-	1510	-	0
No Neonatal Unit Admission	-0.13 -5	-	1497	-	0
Study 10191 - NFP vs. Business As Usual (Thorland, 2017)
Early Preterm Birth (<32 Weeks Gestation)	0.26 * 10	-	108772	-	0
Preterm Birth (<37 Weeks Gestation)	0.23 * 9	-	108772	-	0
Early Term Birth (<39 Weeks Gestation)	0.16 * 6	-	108772	-	0
Very Low Birth Weight (<1500g)	0.20 * 7	-	108772	-	0
Low Birth weight (<2500g)	0.01 0	-	108772	-	0
Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment	-0.09 -3	1 (5)	396	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 1	-
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2014)
Peabody Individual Achievement Test: Arithmetic Achievement Score	0.03 1	-	396	-	48
Peabody Individual Achievement Test: Arithmetic Achievement Score	-0.06 -2	-	378	-	84
Peabody Individual Achievement Test: Reading Achievement Score	0.08 3	-	396	-	48
Peabody Individual Achievement Test: Reading Achievement Score	-0.06 -2	-	378	-	84
Grade Retention Since School Entry	-0.46 * -17	-	375	-	84
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.18 7	1 (1)	407	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2004)
Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Mother-Infant Responsive Interaction	0.18 7	-	407	-	24
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health	0.06 2	1 (8)	1121	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
Maternal Psychological Distress	0.06 2	-	1116	-	0
Depressive Symptoms (12 months post-birth)	0.06 2	-	984	-	0
Depressive Symptoms (18 months post-birth)	0.16 6	-	960	-	0
Depressive Symptoms (24 months post-birth)	0.04 1	-	1121	-	0
General Self-Efficacy (6 months post-birth)	0.07 2	-	943	-	0
General Self-Efficacy (12 months post-birth)	0.06 2	-	980	-	0
General Self-Efficacy (18 months post-birth)	0.12 4	-	949	-	0
General Self-Efficacy (24 months post-birth)	-0.09 -3	-	1109	-	0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use	0.00 0	2 (3)	1733	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10166 - NFP vs. Enhanced Usual Care (Olds, 2004)
Moderate/Heavy Drinker	-0.43 -16	-	641	-	48
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
Smoked at Late Pregnancy	0.06 2	-	1092	-	0
Problem Alcohol and Drug Use Score	0.03 1	-	1068	-	0
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.03 1	2 (2)	1470	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2004)
HOME: Total Score	0.07 2	-	407	-	24
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
All Required Immunizations Received by 24 Months Old	-0.04 -1	-	1063	-	0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health	-0.02 0	2 (8)	2668	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10166 - NFP vs. Enhanced Usual Care (Kitzman, 1997)
% Mothers With Intrauterine Growth Restriction	0.00 0	-	1126	-	0
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
Antenatal Pre-eclampsia/Hypertension	-0.14 -5	-	1542	-	0
Live Birth	-0.26 -10	-	1510	-	0
Gestation at Delivery	0.00 0	-	1498	-	0
In Full Health (late pregnancy)	0.03 1	-	1230	-	0
In Full Health (6 months post-birth)	0.05 2	-	976	-	0
In Full Health (12 months post-birth)	0.06 2	-	990	-	0
In Full Health (18 months post-birth)	0.12 4	-	964	-	0
Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability	0.06 2	2 (12)	1574	Favorable: 1 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2002)
Use of Emergency Housing or Food Banks	0.27 10	-	344	-	0
Number of Months Employed (0 to 12 Months Postpartum)	Null not calculated	-	417	-	0
Number of Months Employed (13 to 24 Months Postpartum)	Favorable * not calculated	-	417	-	0
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention (Olds, 2004)
Number of Months Employed (25 to 48 Months Postpartum)	0.04 1	-	424	-	24
Current Use of Marijuana	0.09 3	-	424	-	24
Moderate or Heavy Drinking in Past 2 Weeks	-0.05 -2	-	424	-	24
Study 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care (Robling, 2016)
In Paid Employment (6 months post-birth)	0.02 0	-	935	-	0
In Paid Employment (12 months post-birth)	-0.05 -1	-	982	-	0
In Paid Employment (18 months post-birth)	0.03 1	-	958	-	0
Receiving State Benefits	0.10 3	-	1150	-	0
Other Financial Support Received	0.11 4	-	1122	-	0
Ever Homeless Since Study Enrollment	0.09 3	-	780	-	0

*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, Version 1.0, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes and statistical significance (see Section 7.3.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

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 10162 - FNP vs. Usual Care
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
England	2009	Average age: 18 years	88% White 6% Mixed Ethnic Origin 4% Black 2% Asian 0.4% Other Ethnic Origin	100% Women	100% Pregnant Women aged 19 years or younger of less than 25 weeks gestation at intake; 59% Less than 16 weeks gestation; 19% Ever been homeless at intake	21% Have a paid job at intake
Study 10180 - NFP vs. Business As Usual
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Netherlands	2007	Average age: 19 years; Maximum age: 25 years	49% Dutch 27% Surinamese/Antillean 19% Other Ethnicity 6% Turkish/Moroccan	--	100% High risk pregnant women, maximum 28 weeks of gestation, no previous live births; Average gestation at baseline: 20 weeks; 34% Lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence at baseline; 19% Victim of physical abuse; 5% Victim of sexual abuse during past year	22% Employed
Study 10179 - NFP vs. Business As Usual
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Pennsylvania, USA	2008	Age range: 22% 18 years old or younger	47% White 28% Hispanic 23% Black 2% Other	--	100% Women with children; 6% Depression in proximity to pregnancy	--
Study 10177 - NFP vs. Business As Usual
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Pennsylvania, USA	2003	Age range: 42% 18 years old or younger	23% Black	100% Women	100% Women who delivered a first-born infant	--
Study 10167 - NFP vs. Minimal Intervention
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Denver, CO, USA	1994	Average age of mothers: 20 years	45% Hispanic 36% Caucasian (Non-Hispanic) 16% African American	100% Women	100% Pregnant women with no previous live births; 17% Experienced any domestic violence in last 6 months	$12,905 Average household annual income 20% Census tract below poverty
Study 10191 - NFP vs. Business As Usual
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
United States of America	2007	25% younger than 18 years, 26% 18-19 years, 25% 20-22 years, 19% 23-29 years, 5% 30 years or older	35% White non-Hispanic 31% Hispanic 28% Black non-Hispanic 7% Other Race-ethnicity	--	100% First-time mothers with singleton births	--
Study 10166 - NFP vs. Enhanced Usual Care
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Memphis, TN, USA	1990	Average age: 18; 64% aged 18 or younger	92% African American	100% Women	100% Pregnant women less than 29 weeks pregnant at enrollment	85% Household income at or below the federal poverty line $1,404 Average annual household discretionary income 56% Head of household employed

“--” 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.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers. To receive a rating of supported or well-supported, the favorable evidence for a program or service must have been obtained from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting.

Studies Rated High

Study 10167

Olds, D. L. (2002). Prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses: From randomized trials to community replication. Prevention Science, 3(3), 153-172. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019990432161

Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., Pettitt, L., Luckey, D. W., Holmberg, J., Ng, R. K., … & Henderson, C. R. (2004). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: Age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1560-1568.

Miller, T. R., Olds, D., Knudtson, M., Luckey, D., Bondy, J., & Stevenson, A. (2011). Return on investment: Nurse and paraprofessional home visitation, Denver. Grant 2005-MU-MU-0001

Holmberg, J., Luckey, D., & Olds, D. (2011). Teacher data for the Denver year-9 follow-up. Grant 2005-MU-MU-0001

Olds, D. L., Holmberg, J. R., Donelan-McCall, N., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., & Robinson, J. (2014). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses on children: Follow-up of a randomized trial at ages 6 and 9 years. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(2), 114-121.

Miller, T., Hendrie, D., & Miller, T. R. (2015). Nurse Family Partnership: Comparing costs per family in randomized trials versus scale-up. Journal of Primary Prevention, 36(6), 419-425. doi:10.1007/s10935-015-0406-3

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10162

Sanders, J., Owen-Jones, E., & Robling, M. (2011). Evaluating the Family Nurse Partnership in England: The Building Blocks trial. The Practising Midwife, 14(7), 13-15.

Owen-Jones, E., Bekkers, M.-J., Butler, C. C., Cannings-John, R., Channon, S., Hood, K., . . . Robling, M. (2013). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership home visiting programme for first time teenage mothers in England: A protocol for the Building Blocks randomised controlled trial. BMC Pediatrics, 13, 114. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-13-114

Robling, M., Bekkers, M.-J., Bell, K., Butler, C. C., Cannings-John, R., Channon, S., . . . Kemp, A. (2016). Effectiveness of a nurse-led intensive home-visitation programme for first-time teenage mothers (Building Blocks): A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 387(10014), 146-155.

Corbacho, B., Bell, K., Stamuli, E., Richardson, G., Ronaldson, S., Hood, K., . . . Torgerson, D. (2017). Cost-effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme in England: Evidence from the Building Blocks trial. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 23(6), 1367-1374. doi:10.1111/jep.12799

Lugg-Widger, F. V., Cannings-John, R., Channon, S., Fitzsimmons, D., Hood, K., Jones, K. H., . . . Robling, M. (2017). Assessing the medium-term impact of a home-visiting programme on child maltreatment in England: Protocol for a routine data linkage study. BMJ Open, 7:e015728. Doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015728

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 10179

Matone, M., Kellom, K., Griffis, H., Quarshie, W., Faerber, J., Gierlach, P., . . . Cronholm, P. F. (2018). A mixed methods evaluation of early childhood abuse prevention within evidence-based home visiting programs. Maternal and Child Health Journal. Doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2530-1

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10177

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(9), 1754-1761.

Matone, M., O'Reilly, A. L., Luan, X., Localio, R., & Rubin, D. M. (2012). Home visitation program effectiveness and the influence of community behavioral norms: A propensity score matched analysis of prenatal smoking cessation. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 1016.

This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10180

Mejdoubi, J., van den Heijkant, S., Struijf, E., van Leerdam, F., HiraSing, R., & Crijnen, A. (2011). Addressing risk factors for child abuse among high risk pregnant women: Design of a randomised controlled trial of the Nurse Family Partnership in Dutch preventive health care. BMC Public Health, 11, 823. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-823

Mejdoubi, J., van den Heijkant, S. C. C. M., van Leerdam, F. J. M., Heymans, M. W., Hirasing, R. A., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2013). Effect of nurse home visits vs. usual care on reducing intimate partner violence in young high-risk pregnant women: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 8(10), e78185.

Mejdoubi, J., van den Heijkant, S. C. C. M., van Leerdam, F. J. M., Crone, M., Crijnen, A., & HiraSing, R. A. (2014). Effects of nurse home visitation on cigarette smoking, pregnancy outcomes and breastfeeding: A randomized controlled trial. Midwifery, 30(6), 688-695. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.006

Mejdoubi, J., van den Heijkant, S. C. C. M., van Leerdam, F. J. M., Heymans, M. W., Crijnen, A., & Hirasing, R. A. (2015). The effect of VoorZorg, the Dutch Nurse-Family Partnership, on child maltreatment and development: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0120182. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120182

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10191

Thorland, W., Currie, D., Wiegand, E. R., Walsh, J., & Mader, N. (2017). Status of breastfeeding and child immunization outcomes in clients of the Nurse–Family Partnership. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(3), 439-445. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-2231-6

Thorland, W., & Currie, D. (2017). Status of birth outcomes in clients of the Nurse-Family Partnership. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(5), 995-1001. doi:10.1007/s10995-017-2267-2

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10166

Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Tatelbaum, R., . . . McConnochie, K. M. (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.

Olds, D., Henderson, C., Jr., Kitzman, H., Eckenrode, J., Cole, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1998). The promise of home visitation: Results of two randomized trials. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(1), 5-21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199801)26:1<5::AID-JCOP2>3.0.CO;2-Y

Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Sidora, K., Henderson Jr, C. R., Hanks, C., Cole, R., . . . Glazner, J. (2000). Enduring effects of nurse home visitation on maternal life course: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA, 283(15), 1983-1989.

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., Robinson, J., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W., . . . Holmberg, J. (2004). Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: Age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1550-1559.

Olds, D. L. (2007). Preventing crime with prenatal and infancy support of parents: The Nurse-Family Partnership. Victims & Offenders, 2(2), 205-225. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564880701263569

Kitzman, H. J., Olds, D. L., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Anson, E. A., Arcoleo, K. J., . . . Holmberg, J. R. (2010). Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on children: Follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 412-418.

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Knudtson, M. D., Anson, E., Smith, J. A., & Cole, R. (2014). Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality: Results of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(9): 800-806. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.472

Enoch, M.-A., Kitzman, H., Smith, J. A., Anson, E., Hodgkinson, C. A., Goldman, D., & Olds, D. L. (2016). A prospective cohort study of influences on externalizing behaviors across childhood: Results from a nurse home visiting randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(5), 376-382. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.02.007

Holland, M. L., Groth, S. W., Smith, J. A., Meng, Y., & Kitzman, H. (2018). Low birthweight in second children after nurse home visiting. Journal Of Perinatology, 38(12), 1610-1619. doi:10.1038/s41372-018-0222-8

Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Anson, E., Lorber, M., Cole, R., Olds, D., & Kitzman, H. (2010). Differential effects of a nurse home-visiting intervention on physically aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 25(1), 35-45.

Bean, K. F. (2012). Differential ratings of and maternal impact on anxiety and depression among African American children in special education. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1868-1875. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.05.024

Bean, K. F., & Sidora-Arcoleo, K. (2012). The relationship between environment, efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement of low-income African American children in special education. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 11(4), 268-286.

Bean, K. F. (2013). Disproportionality and acting-out behaviors among African American children in special education. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30(6), 487-504. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10560-013-0304-6

DeSocio, J. E., Holland, M. L., Kitzman, H. J., & Cole, R. E. (2013). The influence of social-developmental context and nurse visitation intervention on self-agency change in unmarried adolescent mothers. Research In Nursing & Health, 36(2), 158-170. doi:10.1002/nur.21525

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H. J., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Arcoleo, K. J. ... & Stevenson, A. J. (2010). Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on maternal life course and government spending: Follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 419-424. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.49

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Low

Study 10160

Carabin, H., Cowan, L. D., Beebe, L. A., Skaggs, V. J., Thompson, D., & Agbangla, C. (2005). Does participation in a nurse visitation programme reduce the frequency of adverse perinatal outcomes in first-time mothers? Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 19(3), 194-205.

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10181

Nguyen, J. D., Carson, M. L., Parris, K. M., & Place, P. (2003). A comparison pilot study of public health field nursing home visitation program interventions for pregnant hispanic adolescents. Public Health Nursing, 20(5), 412-418.

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10171

Holmes, M., & Rutledge, R. (2016). Evaluation of the Nurse Family Partnership in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health.

This study received a low rating because it did not meet the statistical model standards.

Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 10157

Black, M. M., Nair, P., Kight, C., Wachtel, R., Roby, P., & Schuler, M. (1994). Parenting and early development among children of drug-abusing women: Effects of home intervention. Pediatrics, 94(4 Pt 1), 440-448.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10158

Butz, A. M., Pulsifer, M., Marano, N., Belcher, H., Lears, M. K., & Royall, R. (2001). Effectiveness of a home intervention for perceived child behavioral problems and parenting stress in children with in utero drug exposure. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 155(9), 1029-1037.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10161

Catherine, N. L. A., Gonzalez, A., Boyle, M., Sheehan, D., Jack, S. M., Hougham, K. A., . . . Waddell, C. (2016). Improving children's health and development in British Columbia through nurse home visiting: A randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Health Services Research, 16(a), 349-349. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1594-0

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10163

Davidov, D. M., Jack, S. M., Frost, S. S., Coben, J. H. (2012). Mandatory reporting in the context of home visitation programs: Intimate partner violence and children’s exposure to intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 595-610.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10165

Campbell, T. L. (1994). Impact of prenatal/early infancy home visitation on family health. Family Systems Medicine, 12(1), 81-85. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0089193

Eckenrode, J., Campa, M. I., Morris, P. A., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Bolger, K. E., Kitzman, H., & Olds, D. L. (2017). The prevention of child maltreatment through the Nurse Family Partnership program: Mediating effects in a long-term follow-up study. Child Maltreatment, 22(2), 92-99. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559516685185

Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., . . . Olds, D. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 9-15.

Eckenrode, J., Ganzel, B., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Smith, E., Olds, D. L., Powers, J., . . . Sidora, K. (2000). Preventing child abuse and neglect with a program of nurse home visitation: The limiting effects of domestic violence. JAMA, 284(11), 1385-1391. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.11.1385

Eckenrode, J., Zielinski, D., Smith, E., Marcynyszyn, L. A., Henderson Jr, C. R., Kitzman, H., . . . Olds, D. L. (2001). Child maltreatment and the early onset of problem behaviors: Can a program of nurse home visitation break the link? Development and Psychopathology, 13(4), 873-890.

Izzo, C. V., Eckenrode, J. J., Smith, E. G., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., & Olds, D. L. (2005). Reducing the impact of uncontrollable stressful life events through a program of nurse home visitation for new parents. Prevention Science, 6(4), 269-274. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0010-5

O'Donnell, K. J., Chen, L., MacIsaac, J. L., McEwen, L. M., Nguyen, T., Beckmann, K., . . . Meaney, M. J. (2018). DNA methylome variation in a perinatal nurse-visitation program that reduces child maltreatment: A 27-year follow-up. Translational Psychiatry, 8(1), 15-15. doi:10.1038/s41398-017-0063-9

Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., . . . Luckey, D. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA, 278(8), 637-643.

Olds, D. L., Henderson Jr, C. R., Tatelbaum, R., & Chamberlin, R. (1988). Improving the life-course development of socially disadvantaged mothers: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. American Journal of Public Health, 78(11), 1436-1445.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., & Kitzman, H. (1994). Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring effects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics, 93(1), 89-98.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., & Kitzman, H. (1994). Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring effects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics, 93(1), 89-98.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1994). Intellectual impairment in children of women who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy. Pediatrics, 93(2), 221-227.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Chamberlin, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 78(1), 65-78.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Phelps, C., Kitzman, H., & Hanks, C. (1993). Effect of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on government spending. Medical Care, 31(2), 155-174.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Tatelbaum, R., & Chamberlin, R. (1986). Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 77(1), 16-28.

Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., . . . & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children's criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized control trial. JAMA, 290(14), 1238-1244. doi:10.1001/jama.280.14.1238

Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., & Cole, R. (1995). Effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on surveillance of child maltreatment. Pediatrics, 95(3), 365-372.

Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., Eckenrode, J., Cole, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1998). The promise of home visitation: Results of two randomized trials. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(1), 5-21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199801)26:1<5::AID-JCOP2>3.0.CO;2-Y

Zielinski, D. S., Eckenrode, J., & Olds, D. L. (2009). Nurse home visitation and the prevention of child maltreatment: Impact on the timing of official reports. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), 441-453.

This study is ineligible for review because the publication date is prior to 1990 (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.1).

Study 10168

Flynn, L., Budd, M., & Modelski, J. (2008). Enhancing resource utilization among pregnant adolescents. Public Health Nursing, 25(2), 140-148. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2008.00690.x

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10169

Goldfeld, S., Price, A., Bryson, H., Bruce, T., Mensah, F., Orsini, F., . . . 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), e013307. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013307

Goldfeld, S., Price, A., Smith, C., Bruce, T., Bryson, H., Mensah, F., . . . Kemp, L. (2019). Nurse home visiting for families experiencing adversity: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 143(1), e20181206. doi:10.1542/peds.2018-1206

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10170

Gonzalez, A., Catherine, N., Boyle, M., Jack, S. M., Atkinson, L., Kobor, M., . . . MacMillan, H. L. (2018). Healthy foundations study: A randomised controlled trial to evaluate biological embedding of early-life experiences. BMJ Open, 8(1), e018915. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018915

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10173

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, 424. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-424

Kemp, L., Harris, E., McMahon, C., Matthey, S., Vimpani, G., Anderson, T., . . . 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. doi:10.1111/jan.12052

Kemp, L., Harris, E., McMahon, C., Matthey, S., Vimpani, G., Anderson, T., . . . 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. doi:10.1136/adc.2010.196279

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10174

Kilburn, M. R., & Cannon, J. S. (2017). Home visiting and use of infant health care: A randomized clinical trial. Pediatrics, 139(1), e20161274. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1274

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10175

Koniak-Griffin, D., Anderson, N. L. R., Brecht, M., Verzemnieks, I., Lesser, J., & Kim, S. (2002). Public health nursing care for adolescent mothers: Impact on infant health and selected maternal outcomes at 1 year postbirth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(1), 44-54.

Koniak-Griffin, D., Mathenge, C., Anderson, N. L., & Verzemnieks, I. (1999). An early intervention program for adolescent mothers: A nursing demonstration project. Journal Of Obstetric, Gynecologic, And Neonatal Nursing, 28(1), 51-59.

Koniak-Griffin, D., Verzemnieks, I. L., Anderson, N. L. R., Brecht, M., Lesser, J., Kim, S., & Turner-Pluta, C. (2003). Nurse visitation for adolescent mothers: Two-year infant health and maternal outcomes. Nursing Research, 52(2), 127-136.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10176

Marcenko, M. O., & Spence, M. (1994). Home visitation services for at‐risk pregnant and postpartum women: A randomized trial. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64(3), 468-478.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10182

Norr, K. F., Crittenden, K. S., Lehrer, E. L., Reyes, O., Boyd, C. B., Nacion, K. W., & Watanabe, K. (2003). Maternal and infant outcomes at one year for a nurse-health advocate home visiting program serving African Americans and Mexican Americans. Public Health Nursing, 20(3), 190-203. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0737-1209.2003.20306.x

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10183

Roman, L. A., Lindsay, J. K., Moore, J. S., Duthie, P. A., Peck, C., Barton, L. R., . . . Baer, L. J. (2007). Addressing mental health and stress in medicaid-insured pregnant women using a nurse-community health worker home visiting team. Public Health Nursing, 24(3), 239-248. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2007.00630.x

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10184

Rubin, D. M., O’Reilly, A. L. R., Luan, X., Dai, D., Localio, A. R., & Christian, C. W. (2011). Variation in pregnancy outcomes following statewide implementation of a prenatal home visitation program. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165(3), 198-204.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).

Study 10185

Sadler, L. S., Slade, A., Close, N., Webb, D. L., Simpson, T., Fennie, K., & Mayes, L. C. (2013). Minding the Baby: Enhancing reflectiveness to improve early health and relationship outcomes in an interdisciplinary home visiting program. Infant Mental Health Journal, 34(5), 391-405.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10186

Segal, L., Nguyen, H., Gent, D., Hampton, C., & Boffa, J. (2018). Child protection outcomes of the Australian Nurse Family Partnership program for aboriginal infants and their mothers in central Australia. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0208764-e0208764. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208764

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10187

Shenk, C., Ammerman, R., Teeters, A., Bensman, H., Allen, E., Putnam, F., . . . Van Ginkel, J. B. (2017). History of maltreatment in childhood and subsequent parenting stress in at-risk, first-time mothers: Identifying points of intervention during home visiting. Prevention Science, 18(3), 361-370. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0758-4

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10189

Jungmann, T., Ziert, Y., Kurtz, V., & Brand, T. (2009). Preventing adverse developmental outcomes and early onset conduct problems through prenatal and infancy home visitation: The German pilot project "Pro Kind". European Journal of Developmental Science, 3(3), 292-298.

Kliem, S., Sandner, M., Lohmann, A., Sierau, S., Dähne, V., Klein, A. M., & Jungmann, T. (2018). Follow-up study regarding the medium-term effectiveness of the home-visiting program "Pro Kind" at age 7 years: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 19(1), 323. doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2707-3

Sierau, S., Dahne, V., Brand, T., Kurtz, V., von Klitzing, K., & Jungmann, T. (2016). Effects of home visitation on maternal competencies, family environment, and child development: A randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 17(1), 40-51.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10190

Stubbs, J. M., & Achat, H. M. (2016). Sustained health home visiting can improve families’ social support and community connectedness. Contemporary Nurse, 52(2-3), 286-299. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2016.1224124

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10192

Wust, M. (2012). Early interventions and infant health: Evidence from the Danish home visiting program. Labour Economics, 19(4), 484-495. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2012.05.012

Wüst, M., Mortensen, E. L., Osler, M., & Sørensen, T. I. A. (2018). Universal infant health interventions and young adult outcomes. Health Economics, 27(8), 1319-1324. doi:10.1002/hec.3771

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10193

Yun, K., Chesnokova, A., Matone, M., Luan, X., Localio, A. R., & Rubin, D. M. (2014). Effect of maternal–child home visitation on pregnancy spacing for first-time Latina mothers. American Journal of Public Health, 104(S1), S152-S158.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).