programme using nurse– 7. Community Care nurses low psychosocial resources and chronic conditions may nurse-only home home visitation in 2. Home visitation (IG & CG groups) & high stress (17% vs. 29%, P = prove more successful. visitation. improving infant health in programme, state community health workers 0.08). low-income families, when sponsored through (CHW – IG only). 12. NR. 14. Cost effectiveness compared with usual Medicaid enhanced No other statistically significant research on home visiting community care (CC) prenatal & postnatal infant health effects of the programmes needed. including nurse home services (ESSP) with the nurse–CHW team home visitation’ (p.28). addition of nurse-CHW visitation programme home visits. compared with CG. in the subgroups defined by low 3. Standard Medicaid ESSP psychosocial resources and during pregnancy & 1st 12 high stress. months of life: Risk screening, transportation, No improvements in recurrent psychosocial counselling, ear infections or feeding nutritional guidance problems. No differences in and pregnancy and immunizations, hospitalisations parenting education, or ear infections. primarily through home visitation by a nurse 9. No applicable since IG during pregnancy. Nurse–CHW team intervention Additional components for did not improve general infant IG were CHW phone health compared with standard contacts & home visits with CC including nurse home specific activity modules: visiting. self-esteem; positive health behaviors; self-awareness of stressors, causes of stressors and active problem solving; through development of personal life goals; and community resources. Volunteer Kemp et al. (2011). 1. NR. 4. At-risk mothers living in 8. Primary Outcomes: Quality of 10. NR. 13. The MECSH a the home environment for child programme showed that in Australia. 2. MECSH: Structured development (12–24 months): 11. NR. many outcome areas there nurse home visiting and parent child interaction during
programme using home visitation in improving infant health in low-income families, when compared with usual community care (CC) including nurse home visitation’ (p.28). 2. Home visitation programme, state sponsored through Medicaid enhanced prenatal & postnatal services (ESSP) with the addition of nurse-CHW home visits. 3. Standard Medicaid ESSP during pregnancy & 1st 12 months of life: Risk screening, transportation, psychosocial counselling, nutritional guidance and pregnancy and parenting education, primarily through home visitation by a nurse during pregnancy. Additional components for IG were CHW phone contacts & home visits with specific activity modules: self-esteem; positive health behaviors; self-awareness of stressors, causes of stressors and active problem solving; through development of personal life goals; and community resources. 7. Community Care nurses (IG & CG groups) & community health workers (CHW – IG only). low psychosocial resources and high stress (17% vs. 29%, P = 0.08). No other statistically significant infant health effects of the nurse–CHW team home visitation programme compared with CG. in the subgroups defined by low psychosocial resources and high stress. No improvements in recurrent ear infections or feeding problems. No differences in immunizations, hospitalisations or ear infections. 9. No applicable since IG Nurse–CHW team intervention did not improve general infant health compared with standard CC including nurse home visiting. chronic conditions may prove more successful. 12. NR. nurse-only home visitation. 14. Cost effectiveness research on home visiting programmes needed. Volunteer Kemp et al. (2011). Australia. 1. NR. 2. MECSH: Structured nurse home visiting and 4. At-risk mothers living in a 8. Primary Outcomes: Quality of the home environment for child development (12–24 months): parent child interaction during 10. NR. 11. NR. 13. The MECSH programme showed that in many outcome areas there nurse–
12912_2017_225_MOESM1_ESM.docx