Characteristics of studies reporting HOME scores, including those also reporting other measures of parenting
| Reference | Group allocation | Score | Intervenors | Participants | Intervention | |||||
| 1-150Field et al (1980), USA15 | Random | 0.52 | Trained teenage black female students | Black teen mothers, low socioeconomic status, preterm infants | Home visit (n=30). 2 visits per week birth–4 months; then one per month. Control: no home visit (n=30) | |||||
| Intervention = education on child development, child rearing, teach stimulation of child, facilitate mother–child interaction | ||||||||||
| 1-150Larson (1980), Canada16 | Sequential | 0.39 | Psychology graduates | Working class families | A: pre- and postnatal home visits (n=35). 4 postnatal visits age 1–6 weeks, 5 visits age 6 weeks–15 months | |||||
| B: postnatal home visits (n=36). 7 visits age 6 weeks–6 months, 3 visits age 6–15 months | ||||||||||
| Control: no home visits (n=44) | ||||||||||
| Intervention = counselling and advice on care tasking, mother–infant interaction, social status, child development | ||||||||||
| 1-150Field et al (1982), USA17 | Random | 0.52 | Teachers | Black teen mothers, low socioeconomic status, term infants | A: home visit parent training (n=34). Biweekly visits for 6 months, B: nursery parent training (n=36) four hours per day for 6 months | |||||
| Control: No parent training (n=35) | ||||||||||
| Intervention A: infant stimulation care taking, mother–infant interaction exercises. B: parent training, job training | ||||||||||
| 1-150Barrera et al (1986), Canada18 | Random | 0.55 | Infant parent therapists | Infants born 1979–81 | A: home visits (n=16). 1 visit per week age 0–4 months, then 1 visit per 2 weeks age 5–9 months | |||||
| B: home visits (n=22). 1 visit per month age 9–12 months | ||||||||||
| Control A: no home visits (n= 21, preterm infants). Control B: no home visits (n=24, full term infants) | ||||||||||
| Intervention A: improve child's development. Intervention B: A + improve maternal–child interaction | ||||||||||
| Olds et al (1986, 1994), USA19 20 | Random | 0.50 | Nurses | Children born to teenagers, unmarried, low socioeconomic status | A: Screening at 12 and 24 months of age, no home visits (n=90). B: A + transport to clinics, no home visits (n=94) | |||||
| C: B + antenatal home visits (n=100). Mean 9 visits in pregnancy | ||||||||||
| D: C + postnatal home visits (n=116). Mean combined ante- and postnatal home visits =23 | ||||||||||
| Intervention (C and D) = parent education, promotion of informal maternal support, linkage with community services | ||||||||||
| Barnardet al (1988)/Booth et al (1989), USA21 22 | Random | 0.29 | Nurses | Pregnant and postpartum women lacking social support | Home visit mental health model (n=68). Mean 19 visits from 22 weeks gestation to 12 months of age | |||||
| Control: home visit information/resource utilisation model (n=79). Mean 14 visits (22 weeks gestation–12 months) | ||||||||||
| Intervention: mental health model = therapeutic relation with pregnant women to deal with interpersonal situations and problem solving. Information/resource model information on physical and developmental health of child | ||||||||||
| Osofsky et al (1988), USA23 | Random | 0.38 | Community women | Teenage, unmarried mothers | Home visits + telephone help line + drop in centre. Weekly visits for 1st month, then monthly to 30 months of age | |||||
| Control: no home visits. Total n = 130 (intervention + control, figures not given for each arm) | ||||||||||
| Intervention = teaching child stimulation discussion of parenting issues and maternal problems | ||||||||||
| 1-150Infante-Rivard et al (1989), Canada24 | Random | 0.46 | Public health nurses | Socioeconomically disadvantaged families | Home visits (n=21). 3 prenatal visits + 5 postnatal visits. Control: no home visits (n=26) | |||||
| Intervention = counselling, teaching about child development, child health and behaviour | ||||||||||
| 1-150Wasiket al (1990), USA25 | Random | 0.52 | Day care teachers, social workers, nurses | Children at risk of cognitive difficulties | A: home visits + child development programme (n=16). Weekly visits first 3 years of life | |||||
| B: home visits (n=25). Weekly visits for 3 years. Control: no home visits/child development programme (n=23) | ||||||||||
| Intervention = promotion of parent problem solving strategies | ||||||||||
| 1-150Huxley and Warner (1993), USA26 | Non-random | 0.18 | Nurses | Families referred to tri-agency intervention programme | Home visits (n=20). Visit frequency dependent on need. Control: routine care (n=20) | |||||
| Intervention = prevention of parent dysfunction, education in maternal and child health | ||||||||||
| 1-150Black et al (1994), USA27 | Random | 0.57 | Community nurses | Mothers with prenatal cocaine/heroin use | Home visits (n=31). 2 prenatal visits. Biweekly visits from birth–18 months of age. Control: no home visits (n=29) | |||||
| Intervention = maternal support, promote parenting, child development, use of resources and advocacy | ||||||||||
| 1-150Casey et al (1994), USA28 | Random | 0.64 | Paediatrician, nurse, social worker | Infants with failure to thrive | Home visits (n=67). 1 visit per week year 1. One visit per 2 weeks years 2–3. Control: no home visits (n=113) | |||||
| Intervention = cognitive, language, social development, help with managing parental self identified problems | ||||||||||
| Marcenko and Spence (1994), USA29 | Random | 0.25 | Lay home visitors | Pregnant and postpartum women at risk of child abuse | Home visits (n=125). Prenatal 1 visit per 2 weeks. Postnatal weeks 1–6 weekly visit, weeks 7–26 | |||||
| 1 visit per 2 weeks, weeks 27–52 monthly visit. Control: no home visits (n=100). | ||||||||||
| Intervention = peer support, identify service needs, health education, parent training | ||||||||||
| 1-150Black et al (1995), USA30 | Random | 0.61 | Lay home visitors | Children with failure to thrive | Home visits + clinics (n=64). Weekly visits for one year. Control: clinics only (n=66) | |||||
| Stratified by age of child: younger group = 0–12 months; older group = 21.1–24.9 months | ||||||||||
| Intervention = maternal support, promotion of parenting, child development, use of resources and advocacy | ||||||||||
| Shapiro (1995), Canada31 | Random | 0.18 | Community nurse and home maker | Low birth weight newborns | Home visits (n=50). Mean 3.8 visits + 8.4 telephone contacts up to 8 weeks post discharge | |||||
| Control: routine home visits (n=50). Mean 1.4 visits + 1.9 telephone contacts up to 8 weeks post discharge | ||||||||||
| Intervention = early discharge from hospital, personal maternal support, respite care, help with infant care, light housekeeping, information on infant care | ||||||||||
| Reference | Group allocation | Score | Intervenors | Participants | Intervention | |||||
| 1-150Kitzman et al (1997), USA32 | Random | 0.79 | Nurses | African–American women, 1st pregnancy <29 weeks gestation, >1 sociodemographic risk factors | Home visits (n=228). Mean number prenatal visits = 7, mean number from birth to age 24 months = 26 | |||||
| Control: no home visit, but free transport for prenatal and child development services (n=515) | ||||||||||
| Intervention = helping women improve health related behaviour, child care, and life course development | ||||||||||
| 1-150Davis and Spurr (1998), UK33 | Non random | 0.54 | Health visitors, medical officers | Preschool children, multiple psychosocial problems | Intervention: home visits and routine community services (n=87). Weekly 1 hour sessions. Mean 6 visits | |||||
| Control: routine community services (n=38) | ||||||||||
↵1-150 Studies whose outcome measures have been included in the meta analysis.