from pregnancy to early childhood9 - mental health …...from pregnancy to early childhood; early...
TRANSCRIPT
FROM PREGNANCY TO EARLY CHILDHOOD; EARLY INTERVENTIONS TO ENHANCE THE MENTAL HEALTH OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Volume 2 Tables
Jacqueline Barnes
Annemarie Freude-Lagevardi
Leopold Muller Centre, Department of Paediatrics and Child Health
Royal Free and University College Medical School
University College London
Sponsored and funded by the Mental Health Foundation
Septermber 2002
Contents Abbreviations used
Reviews
Table II.1 Overview of review papers
Theoretical models
Table III.1 Overview of theoretical models
Table III.2 NBAS studies
Table III.3 Psychodynamic model Studies
Table III.4 Attachment model studies
Table III.5 Transactional model studies
Table III.6 Psychotherapy studies
Table III.7 Support model studies
Table III.8 Ecological model studies
Participants
Table IV.1 At risk infants
Table IV.2 At risk parents
Table IV.3 Non risk parents
Table IV.4 New parents
Programme type
Table IV.5 Multi-method
Table IV.6 Group based
Table IV.7 Day care based
Table IV.8 Directed to parents only
Table IV.9 Directed to parents and children
Intervenor characteristics
Table IV.10 Professional home visiting
Table IV.11 Paraprofessional home visiting
Timing
Table IV.12 Prenatal programmes
Table IV.13 Birth started programmes
Table IV.14 Later started programmes
Duration
Table IV.15 Minimal (1 or few sessions)
Table IV.16 Short (up to 1 year)
Table IV.17 Long (more than 1 year)
Intensity
Table IV.18 Dose Effects
Table IV.19 Sleeper Effects
References
Abbreviations used in all tables model/theory: attachment (ATT)
developmental (D) ecological (EC) psychodynamic (PD) social learning theory (SLT) transactional (TRANS)
intervention: counselling (C) parent training (PT) Developmental Programming (DP) parent group (PG) home visiting (HV) Parent-Infant Relationship Treatment (PIRT) interactional guidance (IG) preschool (PS) marital guidance (MG) psychodynamic psychotherapy (PPT) mother-infant interaction approach (MII) Speaking for the Baby Technique (SftBT) mother-infant therapy (MIT) social skills training (SST) parent education (PE) Watch, Wait, & Wonder (WWW)
duration: weeks (wks) months (mths) years (yrs) reducing: from weekly to biweekly or monthly sessions participants: Hispanic (His) married (marr) low-risk (L-R) infants (Is)
Black (Bl) single/not married (s) at-risk (A-R) children (Cs) Caucasian (Cau) teenage (T) lowSES mothers (Ms) White (Wh) primiparous (primi) little education (lowEd) parents (Ps) African-American (AA) pregnant (preg) middle-class (m-c) mixed ethnicity (mix-ethn) non-organic failure to thrive (NOFT)
failure to thrive (FFT)
recruitment: maternity ward (MW) hospital (hosp) midwife (midw) community nurses (CN) records (R) health, education & social services (HES services) multiple/diverse referral sources (multi)
provider: nurse (N) paraprofessional (para)
social worker (SW) professional (prof) home visitor (HV) multidisciplinary team (multi) health visitor (HeV) researcher (res)
psychologist (P) psychiatrist (PSY) dietician (D)
outcome: parents (P) abuse/neglect (a/n) improvement: +
mothers (M) attachment security (att) minimal improvement: (+) children (C) behaviour (b) no change relative to the control group: 0 infants (I) cognition/cognitive (c) negative change, performing worse than control group: -
development (d) health (h) interaction (between mother and child) knowledge (k) mental health (mh) personal development, e.g. job/training (pd) representational level, mothers perception of herself, the infant or others (rep) service use social support (s
Table III.1 Overview of intervention models
1
2
3
4
5
6a
6b
7a
7b
8
9
10
Intervention Bonding Model
Brazelton NBAS
Parents as-Teachers
Psycho-dynamic model
Attachment Model
Developmental Guidance
Interactional/ Relational Guidance
Transactional Developmental
Transactional Interactional
Infant-led psychotherapy
Support Model
Ecological Model
Population Conditions Problems
Functional Behaviour parenting
LowSES Teen Ms parenting
Low SES Teen Ms parenting
Access to resources
Access to resources
Aimed at improving
M-I- relations
P-education
I-skills M-I-relations M-sensitivity/ responsiveness
M-I- relations M-sensitivity/ responsiveness
M-I-relations M-sensitivity/ responsiveness
M-I-relations M-sensitivity/ responsiveness
I-development I-functioning
M-I- Interaction I-development
M-I-relations M-sensitivity/ responsiveness
Methods Focus on
Extra contact
Exercises Exercises Representation Projections Transference
M-internal Working model
M-knowledge of I-development
Enjoyable Interactions Observing I-cues
Problem solving Concrete exercises
Problem solving I-led activity Joint discussion of observations
Housing, work Skills, C-care Self-help
Home visiting plus support method
Materials Use of video
Toys Video
Charts Reading material
Video
Location Maternity Ward
Maternity Ward
Home Clinic Clinic or home Clinic Clinic Clinic Clinic Clinic Home &/or Community
Home &/or Community
Who attends M, or dyad M, or dyad Individually mostly group
Dyad M, or dyad Dyad M-I dyad
Therapist’s Role
N/A Teacher Expert
Teacher expert
Expert facilitator Active listens Interpretation Secure base
Expert facilitator Active listens Interpretation Secure base
Expert informaton Non-expert ? facilitator Modelling Feedback
Teacher Modelling
Facilitator Secure base Information Assistance
Non-expert Facilitator Resource Secure base
Para/ professional support advocacy
Directed at Mother Parents Parents Dyad Mother/dyad
Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother
Infant’s Role
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Indirect N/A or Indirect
Indirect Indirect Indirect Direct N/A N/A
Table 111.2 Brazelton NBAS Studies
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Belsky 1985, 1986 PIFDP
NBAS active exposure to NBAS, Ms only vs couple
primi, Wh, marr obstetric practice E1:n=15 couple NBAS E2:n=15 Ms NBAS C1:n=15 C2:n=15 verbal report of NBAS
n=7/67 dropouts Pb+ interaction 0
Liptak et al. 1983 NBAS NBAS 1 session m-c, Wh, primi, <marr
hospital E: n= NBAS + routine care C1:n= 1 visit by author C2:n= phys. I-examination in front of M total n=75
n=9 refusals n=4/75 dropouts
Mb+ interaction0
Myers 1982 NBAS active P-exposure to NBAS-exam in hospital, Ms vs fathers only
1 45-60mins session primi, m-c, <Wh, couples
hospital E1:n= Ms NBAS E2:n= Fs NBAS C:n= no NBAS total n=42
n=2 Pk+, Pb+/0, Prepr(+)
Rauh et al. 1988 MITP TRANS intensive NBAS in hospital & home
3 months 11 1hr sessions (hospital: 7, home: 4 sessions)
Ps of LBW Is intensive care unit E1:n=25 LBW NBAS C1:n=29 LBW C1:n=28 normal BW
n=15 intensive care nurse
Ic+ Mrepr+
Widmayer & Field 1981 TRANS NBAS with/ without MABI (adaptation of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
lowSES, Bl, teen, preterm
hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n= questionnaire on I-development total n=30
researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Wingerd Bristor et al 1984 parent coaching / skills training
birth-3 days (days 1, 2, &7 post-birth)
primi, mix-SES, intact families
private paediatric clinic
E:n=21 P-coaching C1:n=21 routine care C2:n=21 exp. decliners
n=23 Ib+/0 Mb+/0 Interaction+
Table III.3 Psychodynamic model studies
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Carter et al. 1991 PD Mother-baby class
Case 1: 11 weeks Case 2: prenatal- 13 months
lowSES, teen Referral 2 single case studies
N/A, but case 2 irregular attendance
Therapist Id+, Imh+ Mb+/0 Interaction+
Cohen et al. 1999 WWW vs PPT
PD WWW vs PPT 5 months 1 hr wkly 8-18 sessions
Is <30mths with att, b, sleep, eat problems
C’s mental health centre
E :n=34 WWW C:n=33 PPT
n=6 4 I-mental health therapists
Iatt+, Imh+, Ic+ Mb+/0, Mmh+, Mrepr+ WWW>PPT
Cordeiro 1997 PD PPT 6-24 months 12-12? Sessions or more
Is<3 years with attachment,functional, behavioural problems
GPs, paediatricians
E:n=114 C: N/A
n=26 multi: PSY, clin. P, nurse
15.1%: not improved 56.5%: improved 28.3%: greatly improved Cs <24mths benefit more
Cramer 1998 Interactional Guidance (IG) vs Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PPT)
PD, IG IG vs PPT 6 sessions (max. 10 sessions)
Is<30mths, functionally & behaviourally Disturbed
Child guidance clinic
E:n= IG C:n= PPT total n=38
n=6 Therapist Ib+/0 Mb+, Mrepr+/0, Mmh+ interaction+ overall IG=PPT
Green et al. 1981 PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
abusing Ps Referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective dose effects
Kaukonen & Tamminen 1998
PD systems behavioural
Psychiatric I-family day-ward for all family members
3 weeks daily 9:30am-2pm
at/multiple-risk dysfunctional families
Referrals E:n=81 families C: N/A
Multi: nurses, PSY, family therapists
26% re-admission, 26% successful, 29% continued treatment
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
Referral single case study N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
Lieberman et al. 1991
PD HV: MIT 1 year 1.5hrs wkly
lowSES, HIS, immigrants, anxious dyads
Paediatric clinic
E:n=29 MIT anxious C1:n=23 anxious C2:n=30 secure
n=18 HV: bilingual MSC psycholgists or SW
Ib+ Mrepr0, Mb+
Table III.3 Psychodynamic model studies
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Muir 1992 WWW
PD Object relations
WWW 12 (8-20) sessions 50mins wkly
M & son aged 10.5mths, NOFT
Referral single case study N/A Therapist Ib+, Ih+, Id+ Mrepr+, Mb+
Muir & Thorlaksdottir 1994 WWW
PD Object relations
WWW 6-13 weeks 1hr wkly
Referral 4 single case studies
N/A Therapist
Proulx & Minde 1995
PD Group-based PT for fathers & Is
10 weeks 2.5hrs wkly
fathers unable to relate to toddlers
E:n=5 father’s & I’s group C: N/A
PSY, art therapist Fk+, Fb+
Robert-Tissot et al. 1996 PD PPT vs IG 9.3 weeks 6.1 (1-12) sessions
functionally & behaviourally disturbed Is, aged <30mths, mixSES, intact families
Child guidance clinic
E:n= PPT C:n= IG total n=75
n=10 refusals, n=37/75
IG: P & speech therapist PPT: 4 PSY
Ib+ Mb+, Mrepr+/0 interaction+ PPT=IG sleeper effects
Wright 1986 IDP
ATT PD Objects relations
home-based, outreach MIT
prenatal-3/4 years at-risk Ps with parenting problems, too distressed to get help
Referrals E: MIT C: N/A
N/A multi-disciplinary Profound changes in I’s most essential object relations
Table III.4 Attachment model studies
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Anisfeld et al. 1990 ATT I-carriers vs seats lowSES, Bl, His, preg, primi
MW E=23 C=26
n=11 researcher Mb+ Ib+,Iatt+, Ic0
Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 1998 behaviour vs representations
ATT MIT: behav. vs behavioural + representational level
3 months 1.5-3hrs 4 visits
primi, m-c, insecure Ms
records nurses
E1 :n=10 behav. E2 :n=10 beh+reprC:n=10
N/A HV: 2 authors Iatt0 Mb+ (E1&2) insecureM>behav dismissingM>repres
Egeland & Erickson 1990 STEEP
ATT HV: PPT + P-group
prenatal-1 year biwkly
at-risk, primi, lowSES, lowEd
E:n=74 C:n=80
Iatt0 Mmh+, Mb+, Mrepr+
Heinicke et al. 1999 UCLA
ATT other
HV + MIgroup prenatal-2/4 years wkly-reducinggroup: 17 (0-43)
preg, primi, lowSES, at-risk, ethn-mix
paediatric clinic
E:n=31 HV+MIgroup C:n=33 follow-up
n=6/70 HV: mental health professionals
Ib+, Iatt+, Ic0 Mb+, Mrepr+, Mmh0
Juffer et al. 1997 ATT HV: MIT + book vs book
3 visits interracially adopted Is
adoption agency
E1:n=30 MIT+book E2:n=30 book C:n=30 /
n=17 HV: 3 researchers with MSC
Iatt+, Ib+ Mb+ E2:0 effects
Kitzman et al. 1997 Prenatal/Early IP
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: 1 vs 2 years
prenatal-2 yrs 7(0-18) prenatal 26 (0-71)postnatal
AA, preg, primi, lowSES, single
obstetric care system
E1:n=228 2yrs HV +screen +transp E2:n=230 1yr HV +screen +transp C1:n=515 screen+transp C2:n=166 transport
4% at 2yrs HV: nurses Ih+/0,Ic0, Ib0 Mb+/, Mh+, Mrepr+/0, Mpd0 pregnancies+ service use0 (i.e. immunisations)
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
prenatal-2 yrs 1hr 15mins wkly-reducing8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
antenatal clinic
E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% HV: nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Table III.4 Attachment model studies Study Model Intervention Duration
Intensity Participants Recruitment Condition
n Attrition Provider Outcomes
Parr 1997 PIPPIN
ATT other
HV + PT-group Prenatal-18wks 1hr wkly
low-risk, >Wh mixSES, primi,
E:n=98 HV+groupC:n=114 waiting list
n=32 HV: PI-facilitators Mmh+, Mrepr+, Mb+, Matt+ Fb+, Fmh+, Frepr+
Siegel et al. 1980
ATT? HV vs early extended contact
birth onwards hospital: 5hrs daily 9 home visits
lowSES with normal vs complicated labour /pregnancy
Hospital E1:n=47 & 60 HV & ext. contact E2:n=50 extended contact E3:n=53 HV C:n=52 & 59 routine care
n=204/525 para-HV 200hrs training
Ia/n0 Mb(+) ext. contact only service use0 HV:null results
van den Boom 1994 ATT HV: behavioural MIT
3months 2hrs 3wkly
irritable Is, Cau, lowSES, primi
Hospital Midwives
E1:n=25 MIT + pre-assessment E2:n=25 MIT C1:n=25 pre-treatment assessment C2:n=25
100/588 with complete data
HV: author Ib+, Ic+, Iatt+ Mb+ interaction+
Wendland-Carro et al. 1999 ATT NBAS
video & talk re: M-I-interaction vs caregiving skills
1 hr only lowSES, primi, married
Maternity ward
E:n=17 video + talk re M-I-interaction C:n=19 video + talk re caregiving
n=2 researcher Mb+ interaction+
Wright 1986 IDP
ATT PD objects relations
home-based, outreach MIT
prenatal-3/4 years
at-risk Ps with parenting problems, too distressed to get help
Referrals E: MIT C: N/A
N/A multi-disciplinary profound changes in I’s most essential object relations
Table III.5 Transactional model studies
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Barrera et al. 1990 TRANS RCT: HV:DP vs MII, pre vs fullterm
1 year 1-2hrs wkly-reducing, 23 (12-28) visits
Pre + fullterm, LBW, m-c
Maternity Ward
E1:n=16 DP, pre E2:n=22 MII, pre C1:n=24 fullterm C2:n=21 preterm
HV:4 infant therapists
Ib+, Iatt+ MII: att+ DP: b+ (pre=full)
Drell 1992 TRANS multimodal therapy : dynamic, behavioural, family approach
female toddler E. aged 2yrs, behaviour out-of-control
Referral single case study N/A therapist Ib+ Mb+
Rauh et al. 1988 MITP TRANS intensive NBAS in hospital & home
3 months 11 1hr sessions (hospital: 7, home: 4 sessions)
Ps of LBW Is Intensive care unit E1:n=25 LBW NBAS C1:n=29 LBW C1:n=28 normal BW
N=15 intensive care nurse
Ic+ Mrepr+
Widmayer & Field 1981 TRANS NBAS with/ without MABI (adaptation of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
lowSES, Bl, teen, preterm
Hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n= questionnaire on I-development total n=30
researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Woolfson 1999 TRANS remediation (C),re-education (P), re-definition (P)
pre-schoolers with motor impairments
Convenience sample
E:n=15 C: N/A
n=3 multi-disciplinary team: teacher, nurse, physio/speech/occ therapists
Id+, Ih+ Mb+, Mrepr+
Table III.6 Psychotherapy studies
Study Model Intervention Duration
intensity Participants Recruitment Condition
n Attrition Provider Outcomes
Carter et al. 1991 AMIP PD mother-baby class
Case 1: 11 weeks Case 2: prenatal- 13 months
lowSES, teen referral 2 single case studies
N/A, but case 2 irregular attendance
therapist Id+, Imh+ Mb+/0 interaction+
Cohen et al. 1999 WWW vs PPT
PD WWW vs PPT 5 months 1 hr wkly 8-18 sessions
Is <30mths with att, b, sleep, eat problems
C’s mental health centre
E :n=34 WWW C:n=33 PPT
n=6 4 I-mental health therapists
Iatt+, Imh+, Ic+ Mb+/0, Mmh+, Mrepr+ WWW>PPT
Cordeiro 1997 PD PPT 6-24 months 12-12? sessions or more
Is<3 years with attachment,functional, behavioural problems
GPs, paediatricians
E:n=114 C: N/A
N=26 multi: PSY, clin. P, nurse
15.1%: not improved 56.5%: improved 28.3%: greatly improved Cs <24mths benefit more
Cramer 1998 Interactional Guidance (IG) vs Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PPT)
PD, IG IG vs PPT 6 sessions (max. 10 sessions)
Is<30mths, functionally & behaviourally disturbed
child guidance clinic
E:n= IG C:n= PPT total n=38
N=6 therapist Ib+/0 Mb+, Mrepr+/0, Mmh+ interaction+ overall IG=PPT
Drell 1992 TRANS multimodal therapy : dynamic, behavioural, family approach
female toddler E. aged 2yrs, behaviour out-of-control
referral single case study N/A therapist Ib+ Mb+
Egeland & Erickson 1990 STEEP
ATT HV: PPT + P-group
prenatal-1 yearbiwkly
at-risk, primi, lowSES, lowEd
E:n=74 C:n=80
Iatt0 Mmh+, Mb+, Mrepr+
Free et al. 1996 accuracy in interpreting C’s emotion: Ms with vs without psychotherapy
1 session of rating photographs
depressed Ms & their Cs, m-c, <Cau
day-care centre, P-groups, newspapers, advertising, clinics
E:n=43 depressed Ms with psychotherapy C1:n=10 depressed Ms without therapyC2:n=31 non-depressed Ms
psychotherapy increases accuracy in interpretation of (especially neg.) emotions in depressed Ms & their Cs
Green et al. 1981 PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
abusing Ps referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+ Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective dose effects
Table III.6 Psychotherapy studies
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Kaukonen & Tamminen 1998 PD systems behavioural
psychiatric I-family day-ward for all family members
3 weeks daily 9:30am-2pm
at/multiple-risk dysfunctional families
referrals E:n=81 families C: N/A
multi: nurses, PSY, family therapists
26% re-admission, 26% successful, 29% continued treatment at local guidance clinic
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
referral single case study N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
Lieberman et al. 1991 PD HV: MIT 1 year 1.5hrs wkly
lowSES, HIS, immigrants, anxious dyads
paediatric clinic
E:n=29 MIT anxious C1:n=23 anxious C2:n=30 secure
N=18 HV: bilingual MSC psycholgists or SW
Ib+ Mrepr0, Mb+
McDonough 1993 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
4 months HV: 3 visits, 6-wkly playroom: 12 sessions, wkly
Lisa & Sam Jr, aged 4 mths, NOFT
Referral 1 single case study N/A therapist Ih+, Imh+ Mb+, Mpd+ interaction+
McDonough 1995 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
1 hr wkly multi-problem, resistant families: 2 FTT-cases: 1 resistant, 1 cogn. limited family
Referral 2 single case studies
N/A therapist Ih+ Pb+, Pk+ interaction +
Minde & Tidmarsh 1997 PD MIT +/ PT +/ PPT +/ P-groups
<5->10 sessions
teen, Cau, m-c, <marr, Is with disruptive behaviour
C’s hospital E: n=57 C: N/A
N=3 multi: 20 staff Ib+
Muir & Thorlaksdottir 1994 WWW
PD object relations
WWW 6-13 weeks 1hr wkly
Referral 4 single case studies
N/A therapist
Osofsky & Dickson 2000 VIP
PD play therapy crisis intervention
10-12 months wkly (-reducing) & booster sessions
Cs with PTSD due to witnessing violence/M’s death, Carl & Chad Bobby
referral E:n=35 2 single case studies
N/A therapist
Proulx & Minde 1995 PD group-based PT for fathers & Is
10 weeks 2.5hrs wkly
fathers unable to relate to toddlers
E:n=5 father’s & I’s group C: N/A
PSY, art therapist
Fk+, Fb+
Table III.6 Psychotherapy studies
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Robert-Tissot et al. 1996 PD PPT vs IG 9.3 weeks 6.1 (1-12) sessions
Functionally & behaviourally disturbed Is, aged <30mths, mixSES, intact families
child guidance clinic
E:n= PPT C:n= IG total n=75
N=10 refusals, N=37/75
IG: P & speech therapist PPT: 4 PSY
Ib+ Mb+, Mrepr+/0 interaction+ PPT=IG sleeper effects
v. Hofacker & Papousek 1998 MIRIP
D MII + IG Cau, m-c, regulatory, attachment & autonomy/control disturbed Is
paediatrician E1:n=182 disturbed E2:n=63 younger C:n=49 non-disturbed matched
8.2 refusals, 4.9% dropouts
multi: paediatrician, developmental P, PSY
(Ib+ Mb+) description only serial & parallel methods
Table III.7 Support model studies
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Davis & Spurr, 1998 Guidance and support
HV, manualised From referral (Mean 2.5 yrd) for 2-25 sessions (average 7.8)
Low SES , referred, behav probs and/or parent depression
Health visitrs, GP or self
E: n=55 C: comparison n=38 (routine care)
31% initially (60/87), further drop out 5
Specially trained HV or mental health worker
Mmh+, Mself esteem+ M Stress+ Mrep+, Home environment+ Cb+
Johnson et al. 1993 Community MP
support HV birth-1 year Low SES, primi health authority E:n=127 HV + routine care E:n=105 routine care
11% para-HV: 30 ethnic peers 4 wks training
Ia/n0 Mb+, Mmh+ service use+ (immunisation)
Lealman et al. 1983 support health visitor drop-in centre & telephone
birth-18 months wkly
At-risk non-Asian Is
E1:n=103 drop-in-centre, high-risk E2:n=199 social worker, high-risk C1:n=209 high risk C2:n=2291 low-risk
n=28 health visitor, social worker
Ia/n0/-, Ih0/- (!) service use0/- (!) null results
Luster et al. 1996 TIES
support HV: support/no PE
(birth?)-5 years wkly
LowSES, primi, teen
E:n=72 HV C:n=70 less intensive phone line service
6 para-HV Id0, Ic0 null results
Marcenko & Spence, 1994 support HV prenatally-1year wkly-reducing
Preg, AA, lowSES, at-risk for out-of-home placement
obstetric clinic E:n=110 HV+routine care C:n=77 routine care
n=58 para-HV: ethnic peer Mss+, Mmh+, Mb0 service use+ out-of-home placement0
McDonald Culp et al. 1998 teen vs adult
education HV 6 months 1hr wkly
Preg, low SES, teen & adult, <Cau,
health department
E:n=61 C: N/A
para-HV: 30hrs training
Mk+, Mb+ service use+ teen catch up on Mk
Spencer et al. 1989 SMFWP
support HV: support/no PE
prenatal-1 year Preg, at-risk, non-Asian, n=1288
2 maternity units E:n= support C:n= routine care
n=52 para-HV with personality/life experiences
Ih0 null results
Table III.8 Ecological model studies
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Barth 1991 CPEP
EC HV 6 months 11 (5-20) visits
preg, mix-ethn, lowSES, at-risk
HES-services E:n=97 HV C:n=94 routine care
n=122 para-HV: ethnic peer
Ia/n0 null results
Black et al. 1995 EC HV with /without clinic
1 year 1hr wkly 19.2 (0-47) visits
LowSES, <AA, <single, lowEd, NOFT
paediatric primary clinic
C:n=64 HV + clinic C:n=66 clinic
20% not recruited n=14
3 para-HV Ic+, Ib+ Mb+
Black et al. 1994 SPICE
EC HV : MIT + clinic vs clinic
prenatal-18mths 1hr biwkly HV :12 (0-32) clinic:25 (0-75) mthly-reducing
LowSES, drug abusing, single, lowEd, <AA
prenatal clinic E:n=31 HV+clinic C:n=29 clinic
10% refuse n=27
2 community nurses
Ic(+)/0 Mb+ service use(+)
IHDP 1990 EC other
RCT HV + centre + MIgroup
birth-3 years wkly-reducing
LBW, preterm, ethn-mix
8 hospitals E1:n=377 HV+centre+group E2:n=330 El-low compliers C:n=512/608 follow-up
7% of recruited
HV: prof./ graduates
Ic+, Ih-/0(NOFT), Ib0, compliers<Ic+, Ib+ Mb+(HOME)
Kitzman et al. 1997 Prenatal/Early IP
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: 1 vs 2 years
prenatal-2 yrs 7(0-18) prenatal 26 (0-71) postnatal
AA, preg, primi, lowSES, single
obstetric care system
E1:n=228 2yrs HV +screen +transp E2:n=230 1yr HV +screen +transp C1:n=515 screen+transp C2:n=166 transport
4% at 2yrs nurses Ih+/0,Ic0, Ib0 Mb+/, Mh+, Mrepr+/0, Mpd0 pregnancies+ service use0 (i.e. immunisations)
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
referral Single case study N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
Leifer et al. 1989 EC PD
PPT & PIRT 1-2 years ? Depressed Mae & irritable son Jr aged 2 mths, FTT
referral Single case study N/A therapist (PPT), occupat. therapist (PIRT)
Iatt+, Id+ Mmh+, Mb+
Table III.8 Ecological model studies
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Margolis et al. 1996 EC ? HV + office vs office
wkly-biwkly Pre, primi, lowSES paediatric & family practice
E1:n= HV+office E2:n= office C:n=routine care
n=14/93 recruited
HV: 3 nurses service use+
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
prenatal-2 yrs 1hr15mins wkly-reducing 8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
antenatal clinic E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- Birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Taylor & Beauchamp 1988
EC HV: PE birth-1 month 4, 90mins sessions
Preg, primi, mix-SES, mix-ethn, mix-Ed
hospital E :n= hosp & home PE C:n= routine care
n=12/42 HV: student nurse Mrepr+, Mb+, Mk+ interaction+
Table IV.1 At risk-infant
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Barrera et al. 1990 TRANS RCT: HV:DP vs MII, pre vs fullterm
1 year 1-2hrs wkly-reducing, 23 (12-28) visits
Pre+fullterm, LBW, m-c maternity ward
E1:n=16 DP, pre E2:n=22 MII, pre C1:n=24 fullterm C2:n=21 preterm
HV:4 infant therapists Ib+, Iatt+ MII: att+ DP: b+ (pre=full)
Black et al. 1995 EC HV with /without clinic
1 year 1hr wkly 19.2 (0-47) visits
LowSES, <AA, <single, lowEd, NOFT
paediatric primary clinic
C:n=64 HV + clinic C:n=66 clinic
20% not recruited n=14
3 para-HV Ic+, Ib+ Mb+ younger Cs benefit more (c+)
Cohen et al. 1999 WWW vs PPT
PD WWW vs PPT 5 months 1 hr wkly 8-18 sessions
Is <30mths with att, b, sleep, eat problems
C’s mental health centre
E :n=34 WWW C:n=33 PPT
n=6 4 I-mental health therapists
Iatt+, Imh+, Ic+ Mb+/0, Mmh+, Mrepr+ WWW>PPT
Collaborative Group on Preterm Birth Prevention 1993
Ed: preterm birth prevention + examination
prenatally for 16(?) weeks wkly examinations from 20-24 wks gestation
Preg, lowSES, mix-ethn, at-risk for preterm labour
3 hospital E:n=1200 high-risk + Ed + examinations C:n=1195 high-risk /
n=1011 refusals
nurses null results
Cordeiro 1997 PD PPT 6-24 months 12-12 sessions or more
Is<3 years with attachment,functional, behavioural problems
GPs, paediatricians
E:n=114 C: N/A
n=26 multi: PSY, clin. P, nurse
15.1%: not improved 56.5%: improved 28.3%: greatly improved Cs <24mths benefit more
Cramer 1998 Interactional Guidance (IG) vs Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PPT)
PD, IG IG vs PPT 6 sessions (max. 10 sessions)
Is<30mths, functionally & behaviourally Disturbed
child guidance clinic
E:n= IG C:n= PPT total n=38
n=6 therapist Ib+/0 Mb+, Mrepr+/0, Mmh+ interaction+ overall IG=PPT
Davis & Rushton 1991 PAS
other HV : support wkly 7.8 (2-25) sessions
LowSES, mult-risk, Cs with multi-problems
HES-services E:n=55 HV-support C:n=38 /
36.8% HV: health visitor, clin. medical officer
Ib+ Mb+, Mmh+, Mrepr+/0
Table IV.1 At risk-infant
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Drell 1992 TRANS multimodal therapy: dynamic, behavioural, family approach
Female toddler E. aged 2yrs, behaviour out-of-control
referral single case study N/A therapist Ib+ Mb+
Field et al. 1980 RCT HV: pre vs fullterm Is, teen vs adult Ms
1/2hr biwkly Low SES, Bl, teen, single, preterm
E1:n=30 preterm teen C1:n=30 fullterm teen C2:n=30 fullterm teen C3:n=30 preterm adult C4:n=30 fullterm adult
10% HV: trained interventionist & student
Ih+, Imh+, Ic+? Mrepr+, Mb+ interaction+
Grantham-McGregor et al. 1991 JS
HV : nutrition with/without stimulation
2 years 1hr wkly
LowSES, growth stunted Is
health clinic E1:n=32 stunted, nutr&stimul E2:n=30 stunted stimulated E3:n= nutrition C1: n=33 / stunted C2:n=32 / non-stunted
para-Hv: ethnic peer Id+
Hancock 1998 HV based on Iwaniec (1995)
more than 1 year
Amy aged 2.5 yrs, FTT, emotionally abused
referral single case study N/A HV: health visitor Ib+, Ih+ Mb+
IHDP 1990 EC other
RCT HV + centre + MIgroup
birth-3 years wkly-reducing
LBW, preterm, ethn-mix 8 hospitals E1:n=377 HV+centre+group E2:n=330 El-low compliers C:n=512/608 follow-up
7% of recruited
HV: prof./ graduates
Ic+, Ih-/0(NOFT), Ib0, compliers<Ic+, Ib+ Mb+(HOME)
Juffer et al. 1997
ATT HV: MIT + book vs book
3 visits Interracially Adopted Is
adoption agency E1:n=30 MIT+book E2:n=30 book C:n=30 /
n=17 HV: 3 researchers with MSC
Iatt+, Ib+ Mb+ E2:0 effects
Table IV.1 At risk-infant
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Leib et al. 1980 stimulation sensory enrichment programme
Birth – hospital discharge ?
preterm Is, Wh, m-c, neonatal intensive care unit
E:n=14 stimulation C:n=14 routine care
nurses Id+, Ih0 (weight gain)
Leifer et al. 1989 EC PD
PPT & PIRT 1-2 years ? Depressed Mae & irritable son Jr aged 2 mths, FTT
referral single case study N/A therapist (PPT), occupat. therapist (PIRT)
Iatt+, Id+ Mmh+, Mb+
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
referral single case study N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
McDonough 1993 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
4 months HV: 3 visits, 6-wkly playroom: 12 sessions, wkly
Lisa & Sam Jr, aged 4 mths, NOFT
referral 1 single case study
N/A therapist Ih+, Imh+ Mb+, Mpd+ interaction+
McDonough 1995 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
1 hr wkly multi-problem, resistant families: 2 FTT-cases: 1 resistant, 1 cogn. Limited family
referral 2 single case studies
N/A therapist Ih+ Pb+, Pk+ interaction +
Muir 1992 WWW
PD object relations
WWW 12 (8-20) sessions 50mins wkly
Jan & son Troy, aged 10.5mths, NOFT
referral single case study N/A therapist Ib+, Ih+, Id+ Mrepr+, Mb+
Oates et al. 1995 KEEPSAFE
HV + preschool 1 year biwkly
abused Cs multi E: n=24 C:N/A
N/A HV: therapist Ib+, Ic+
Osofsky & Dickson 2000 VIP
PD play therapy crisis intervention
10-12 months wkly (-reducing) & booster sessions
Cs with PTSD due to witnessing violence/M’s death, Carl & Chad Bobby
referral E:n=35 2 single case studies
N/A therapist
Puckering et al. 1996 MP
empowerment
Mellow Parenting group intervention (MP)
4 months wkly
Linda & Andrew aged 23mths, M-I-interaction & eating problems
single case study: MP
N/A MP-therapists Ib+ Mb+, Mmh+/0, Mrepr+, Mpd+
Rauh et al. 1988 MITP TRANS intensive NBAS in hospital & home
3 months 11 1hr sessions (hospital: 7, home: 4 sessions)
Ps of LBW Is intensive care unit
E1:n=25 LBW NBAS C1:n=29 LBW C1:n=28 normal BW
n=15 intensive care nurse Ic+ Mrepr+
Table IV.1 At risk-infant
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Robert-Tissot et al. 1996
PD PPT vs IG 9.3 weeks 6.1 (1-12) sessions
Functionally & behaviourally disturbed Is, aged <30mths, mixSES, intact families
child guidance clinic
E:n= PPT C:n= IG total n=75
n=10 refusals, n=37/75
IG: P & speech therapist PPT: 4 PSY
Ib+ Mb+, Mrepr+/0 interaction+ PPT=IG sleeper effects
Ross 1984 HV : PE birth-1 year Premature, lowSES, mix-ethn
medical centre E:n=40 HV-PE premature C:n=40 matched premature
n=5 HV: nurse, paediatric occ. therapist
Ic+, Imh+, Id0 Mb+, Mrepr0
Schanberg & Field 1987 stimulation tactile kinesthetic stimulation
10 days 45mins daily
Premature, LBW neonates
hospital E:n=26 t/k- stimulation C:n=routine care
Ib+, Ih+, Id+ service use+cost-effective early discharge
Seifer et al. 1991 Interaction trans-disciplinary model
Ps counselling & video interaction coaching (IC) for Is with developmental disabilities
10 months IC: 6 sessions P-group: wkly
Is with developmental disabilities
multi: e.g. hospitals, practitioners,
E:n=23 IC + Ps counselling group C:n=P-group, no IC but video watching
P, SW Ib+, Id+ Mb+,
Spencer et al. 1989 SMFWP
support HV: support/no PE
parental-1 year preg, at risk, non-Asian, n=1288
2 maternity units
E:n=support C:n=routine care
n=52 para-HV with personality/life experiences
Ih0 null results
v. Hofacker & Papousek 1998 MIRIP
D MII + IG Cau, m-c, regulatory, attachment & autonomy/control disturbed Is
paediatrician E1:n=182 disturbed E2:n=63 younger C:n=49 non-disturbed matched
8.2 refusals, 4.9% dropouts
multi: paediatrician, developmental P, PSY
(Ib+ Mb+) description only serial & parallel methods
Widmayer & Field 1981 TRANS NBAS with/without MABI (adaption of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
lowSES, B1, teen, preterm
hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n=questionnaire on I-development total n=30
researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Table IV.1 At risk-infant
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Woolfson 1999 TRANS remediation (C),re-education (P), re-definition (P)
pre-schoolers with motor impairments
convenience sample
E:n=15 C: N/A
n=3 multi-disciplinary team: teacher, nurse, physio/ speech/ occ therapists
Id+, Ih+ Mb+, Mrepr+
Wright et al. 1998 PP
HV 1visit or more NOFT, <2yrs health district E:n=95 HV+routine care C:n=109 routine care
complex HV: research nurse, health visitor, dietician
Ih+
Table IV.2 At risk parents
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
ABECEDARIAN Ramey & Campbell 1984 Horacek, et al 1987
HV, nutrition & educational day care centre
HV: 3 years, 15 sessions/yr centre: 5 years 6-8hrs daily
lowSES, Bl, single, cog. disadvantaged
hospital & social services
E1:n=41/25 pre-school & school E2:n=24 pre-school E3:n=21 school C:n=44/90 low-risk
20.7% overall teachers Ic+ Cs with more services benefit more (dose effects)
Black et al. 1994 SPICE
EC HV : MIT + clinic vs clinic
prenatal-18mths 1hr biwkly HV :12 (0-32) clinic:25 (0-75) mthly-reducing
lowSES, drug abusing, single, lowEd, <AA
prenatal clinic E:n=31 HV+clinic C:n=29 clinic
10% refuse n=27
2 community nurses
Ic(+)/0 Mb+ service use(+)
Booth et al. 1987 HV : MIT vs didactic/info (test of 2-step model)
prenatal-1 year
n=95 preg, Wh, multi-risk
health department
E1:n=44% MIT E2:n=56% didactic/info
nurse Mb+, Mmh+ interaction+ dose effect
Carter et al. 1991 AMIP PD mother-baby class Case 1: 11 weeks Case 2: prenatal- 13 months
lowSES, teen referral 2 single case studies N/A, but case 2 irregular attendance
therapist Id+, Imh+ Mb+/0 interaction+
Field et al. 1980 RCT HV: pre vs fullterm Is, Teen vs adult Ms
1/2hr biwkly
lowSES, Bl, teen, single, preterm
E1:n=30 preterm teen C1:n=30 fullterm teen C2:n=30 fullterm teen C3:n=30 preterm adult C4:n=30 fullterm adult
10% HV: trained interventionist & student
Ih+, Imh+, Ic+? Mrepr+, Mb+ interaction+
Field et al. 1982
HV-based PT in I-stimulation vs nursery-based paid PT-training
birth-6 months HV: biwkly nursery: 4hrs daily
lowSES, Bl, teen E1:n=40 HV PT E2:n=40 nursery PT (teacher aide) C:n=40
N/A HV: psychology student with exp-teens as teacher aides
Ih+, Id+, Imh+, Ic+ Mpd+ pregnancies+ dose effects sleeper effects
Table IV.2 At risk parents
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Free et al. 1996 accuracy in interpreting C’s emotion: Ms with vs without psychotherapy
1 session of rating photographs
depressed Ms & their Cs, m-c, <Cau
day-care centre, P-groups, newspapers, advertising, clinics
E:n=43 depressed Ms with psychotherapy C1:n=10 depressed Ms without therapy C2:n=31 non-depressed Ms
psychotherapy increases accuracy in interpretation of (especially neg.) emotions in depressed Ms & their Cs
Green et al. 1981 PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
abusing Ps referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+ Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective dose effects
Leifer et al. 1989 EC PD
PPT & PIRT 1-2 years ? depressed Mae & irritable son Jr aged 2 mths, FTT
referral single case study N/A therapist (PPT), occupat. therapist (PIRT)
Iatt+, Id+ Mmh+, Mb+
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
referral single case study N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
Lyons-Ruth et al. 1990
HV: prof vs para-professional visitors
13.3 (9-18) mths 1hr wkly 46.7 visits mthly drop-in hour
lowSES, depressed, inadequate Ms
HES-services E1:n= prof HV+P-group E2:n=10 para HV+drop-in-hour C1:n=10 / high-risk C2:n=35 / community Is/non-depressed Ms
n=9 para-HV: ethnic mothers, prof-HV: MSC-psychologist
Iatt+, Ic+, Mb0 para=prof service
Luster et al. 1996 TIES support HV: support/no PE
(birth?)-5 years wkly
lowSES, primi, teen E:n=72 HV C:n=70 less intensive phone line service
6 para-HV Id0, Ic0 null results
Table IV.2 At risk parents
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
McDonald Culp et al. 1998 teen vs adult
education HV 6 months 1hr wkly
preg, low SES, teen&adult, <Cau,
health department
E:n=61 C: N/A
para-HV: 30hrs training
Mk+, Mb+ service use+ teen catch up on Mk
McDonough 1995 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
1 hr wkly multi-problem, resistant families: 2 FTT-cases: 1 resistant, 1 cogn. limited family
referral 2 single case studies N/A therapist Ih+ Pb+, Pk+ interaction +
Minde & Tidmarsh 1997 PD MIT +/ PT +/ PPT +/ P-groups
teen, Cau, m-c, <marr, Is with disruptive behaviour
C’s hospital E: n=57 C: N/A
n=3 multi: 20 staff Ib+
Nye et al. 1995 MRCOP
RCT HV: PT&MG of Ms vs both Ps
10 months wkly-biwkly 28 sessions
Cau, alcoholism court records re drunk driving
E1:n=20 PT Ms E2:n=22 PT both Ps C:n=23 /
n=10 (E2) HV: MSc P or SW
Ib+
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
prenatal-2 yrs 1hr15mins wkly-reducing 8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
antenatal clinic
E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Wagner & Clayton 1999 PAT
education HV + case management + PE
prenatal-2 years
SV-PAT: lowSES, <Latina Teen-PAT: lowSES, teens
SV-PAT: E:n=298 HV C:n=199 Teen-PAT: E1:n=175 HV + PAT + case management E2:n=174 case management E3:n=177 PAT C:n=178
SV-PAT: 43% from programme 27% from evaluation
para-HV Id0, Ih0, Mk(+), Mb(+), Mrepr (+) dose effects
Table IV.2 At risk parents
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Ware & Osofsky 1987 MIP
HV + drop-in-centre + 24hr-telephone line
birth-30 months HV: wkly-reducing centre: wkly
mix-ethn, teens E: n=54 C1:n=24 routine care C2:n=28 non-engagers
30-40% 2/4 HVs
para-HV Ia0, Ic+/0 Mb+ interaction+/0 sleeper effects overall null results
Widmayer & Field 1981 TRANS NBAS with/ without MABI (adaptation of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
lowSES, Bl, teen, preterm
hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n= questionnaire on I-development total n=30
researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Table IV.3 Low-risk families
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Belsky 1985; 1986 PIFDP
NBAS active exposure to NBAS, Ms only vs couple
Primi, Wh, marr Obstetric practice
E1:n=15 couple NBAS E2:n=15 Ms NBAS C1:n=15 C2:n=15 verbal report of NBAS
n=7/67 dropouts Pb+ interaction 0
Liptak et al. 1983 NBAS NBAS 1 session m-c, Wh, primi, <marr
hospital E: n= NBAS + routine care C1:n= 1 visit by author C2:n= phys. I-examination in front of M total n=75
n=9 refusals n=4/75 dropouts
Mb+ interaction0
Myers 1982 NBAS active P-exposure to NBAS-exam in hospital, Ms vs fathers only
1 45-60mins session
primi, m-c, <Wh, couples
hospital E1:n= Ms NBAS E2:n= Fs NBAS C:n= no NBAS total n=42
n=2 Pk+, Pb+/0, Prepr(+)
Taylor & Beauchamp 1988
EC HV: PE birth-1 month 4, 90mins sessions
preg, primi, mix-SES, mix-ethn, mix-Ed
hospital E :n= hosp & home PE C:n= routine care
n=12/42 HV: student nurse
Mrepr+, Mb+, Mk+ interaction+
Wingerd Bristor et al 1984
parent coaching / skills training
birth-3 days (days 1, 2, &7 post-birth)
primi, mix-SES, intact families
private paediatric clinic
E:n=21 P-coaching C1:n=21 routine care C2:n=21 exp. decliners
n=23 Ib+/0 Mb+/0 interaction+
Table IV.4 New Parents
Study Model Intervention Duration
intensity Participants Recruitment Condition
n Attrition Provider Outcomes
Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 1998 behaviour vs representations
ATT MIT: behav. vs behav + repres level
3 months 1.5-3hrs 4 visits
Primi, m-c, insecure Ms
records nurses
E1 :n=10 behav. E2 :n=10 beh+repr C:n=10
N/A HV: 2 authors Iatt0 Mb+ (E1&2) insecureM>behav dismissingM>repres
Belsky 1985, 1986 PIFDP
NBAS active exposure to NBAS, Ms only vs couple
primi, Wh, marr
obstetric practice E1:n=15 couple NBAS E2:n=15 Ms NBAS C1:n=15 C2:n=15 verbal report of NBAS
N=7/67 dropouts
Pb+ interaction 0
Daro & Harding 1999 HFA
HV prenatal-3/5 years wkly or less
at-risk, mix-ethn, mix-SES newborns
E: high-risk C: low-risk
Varied, no pattern
HV: professionals with degree
Ih+/0, Ia/n+/0, Id0 Mpd+/0, Mss0 interaction+ service use+/0
Egeland & Erickson 1990 STEEP
ATT HV: PPT + P-group
prenatal-1 year biwkly
at-risk, primi, lowSES, lowEd
E:n=74 C:n=80
Iatt0 Mmh+, Mb+, Mrepr+
Hardy and Streett 1989 HV: PE + telephone line
birth-2 years 40-60mins wkly-reducing
LowSES, <Bl, <primi, <single
E:n=131 HV C:n=132 routine care
n=27 para-HV: ethnic peer
Ih+, Ia/n+ service use+
Johnson et al. 1993 Community MP
Support HV birth-1 year low SES, primi
health authority E:n=127 HV + routine care E:n=105 routine care
11% para-HV: 30 ethnic peers 4 wks training
Ia/n0 Mb+, Mmh+ service use+ (immunisation)
Kitzman et al. 1997 Prenatal/Early IP
EC, ATT Other
RCT HV: 1 vs 2 years
prenatal-2 yrs 7(0-18) prenatal 26 (0-71)postnatal
AA, preg, primi, lowSES, single
obstetric care system
E1:n=228 2yrs HV +screen +transp E2:n=230 1yr HV +screen +transp C1:n=515 screen+transp C2:n=166 transport
4% at 2yrs nurses Ih+/0,Ic0, Ib0 Mb+/, Mh+, Mrepr+/0, Mpd0 pregnancies+ service use0 (i.e. immunisations)
Table IV.4 New parents
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Liptak et al. 1983 NBAS NBAS 1 session m-c, Wh, primi, <marr
hospital E: n= NBAS + routine care C1:n= 1 visit by author C2:n= phys. I-examination in front of M total n=75
n=9 refusals n=4/75 dropouts
Mb+ interaction0
Luster et al. 1996 TIES
Support HV: support/no PE
(birth?)-5 years wkly
LowSES, primi, teen
E:n=72 HV C:n=70 less intensive phone line service
6 para-HV Id0, Ic0 null results
Margolis et al. 1996 EC ? HV + office vs office
wkly-biwkly
pre, primi, lowSES
Paediatric & family practice
E1:n= HV+office E2:n= office C:n=routine care
n=14/93 recruited
HV: 3 nurses service use+
Myers 1982 NBAS active P-exposure to NBAS-exam in hospital, Ms vs fathers only
1 45-60mins session
primi, m-c, <Wh, couples
Hospital E1:n= Ms NBAS E2:n= Fs NBAS C:n= no NBAS total n=42
n=2 Pk+, Pb+/0, Prepr(+)
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT Other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
prenatal-2 yrs 1hr15mins wkly-reducing 8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
Antenatal clinic E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Parr 1997 PIPPIN
ATT Other
HV + PT-group prenatal-18wks 1hr wkly
low-risk, >Wh mixSES, primi,
E:n=98 HV+group C:n=114 waiting list
n=32 PI-facilitators Mmh+, Mrepr+, Mb+, Matt+ Fb+, Fmh+, Frepr+
Wendland-Carro et al. 1999 ATT NBAS
video & talk re: M-I-interaction vs caregiving skills
1 hr only lowSES, primi, married
Maternity ward E:n=17 video + talk re M-I-interaction C:n=19 video + talk re caregiving
n=2 Researcher Mb+ interaction+
Wingerd Bristor et al 1984
parent coaching / skills training
birth-3 days (days 1, 2, &7 post-birth)
primi, mix-SES, intact families
Private paediatric clinic
E:n=21 P-coaching C1:n=21 routine care C2:n=21 exp. decliners
n=23 Ib+/0 Mb+/0 interaction+
Table IV.5 Multi-modal/method interventions
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
ABECEDARIAN Ramey & Campbell 1984 Horacek et al 1987
HV, nutrition & educational day care centre
HV: 3 years, 15 sessions/yr centre: 5 years 6-8hrs daily
lowSES, Bl, single, cog. Disadvantaged
hospital & social services
E1:n=41/25 pre-school & school E2:n=24 pre-school E3:n=21 school C:n=44/90 low-risk
20.7% overall teachers Ic+ Cs with more services benefit more (dose effects)
Baker et al. 1999 HIPPY
HV + preschool + P-groups vs preschool
2 years HV: 30-60mins biwkly P-group: biwkly
<AA, limited Ed Ps & preschoolers
3 sites E:n=37-63 HV + preschool + P-group C:n=32-66 preschool
9-28% for sites para-HV varied for cohorts/sites Ic+/-
Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 1998 Behaviour vs representations
ATT MIT: behav. vs behav + repres level
3 months 1.5-3hrs 4 visits
Primi, m-c, insecure Ms
records nurses
E1 :n=10 behav. E2 :n=10 beh + repr C:n=10
N/A HV: 2 authors Iatt0 Mb+ (E1&2) insecureM>behav dismissingM>repres
Brayden et al 1993 HV + indiv. C + P-groups
prenatal-2 years HV: mthly groups: 44 biwkly, 5 prenatal
preg, lowSES, at-risk
hospital E:n=141 high-risk C1:n=122 high-risk routine care C2:n=264 low-risk routine care
10-20% para-HV multi-team
Ia/n0/- (!) service use+ null results
Drell 1992 TRANS multimodal therapy : dynamic, behavioural, family approach
female toddler E. aged 2yrs, behaviour out-of-control
referral single case study N/A therapist Ib+ Mb+
Egeland & Erickson 1990 STEEP
ATT HV: PPT + P-group
prenatal-1 year biwkly
at-risk, primi, lowSES, lowEd
E:n=74 C:n=80
Iatt0 Mmh+, Mb+, Mrepr+
Grantham-McGregor et al. 1991 JS
HV : nutrition with/without stimulation
2 years 1hr wkly
lowSES, growth stunted Is
health clinic E1:n=32 stunted, nutr&stimul E2:n=30 stunted stimulated E3:n= nutrition C1: n=33 / stunted C2:n=32 / non-stunted
para-Hv: ethnic peer Id+
Table IV.5 Multi-modal/method interventions
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Green et al. 1981
PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
abusing Ps referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+ Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective dose effects
Hardy and Streett 1989
HV: PE + telephone line
birth-2 years 40-60mins wkly-reducing
lowSES, <Bl, <primi, <single
E:n=131 HV C:n=132 routine care
n=27 para-HV: ethnic peer
Ih+, Ia/n+ service use+
Heinicke et al. 1999 UCLA
ATT other
HV + MI-group prenatal-2/4 years wkly-reducing group: 17 (0-43)
preg, primi, lowSES, at-risk, ethn-mix
Paediatric clinic E:n=31 HV+MIgroup C:n=33 follow-up
n=6/70 HV: mental health professionals
Ib+, Iatt+, Ic0 Mb+, Mrepr+, Mmh0
IHDP 1990 EC other
RCT HV + centre + MIgroup
birth-3 years wkly-reducing
LBW, preterm, ethn-mix
8 hospitals E1:n=377 HV+centre+group E2:n=330 El-low compliers C:n=512/608 follow-up
7% of recruited
HV: prof./ graduates
Ic+, Ih-/0(NOFT), Ib0, compliers<Ic+, Ib+ Mb+(HOME)
Juffer et al. 1997 ATT HV: MIT + book vs book
3 visits Interracially adopted Is
Adoption agency
E1:n=30 MIT+book E2:n=30 book C:n=30 /
n=17 HV: 3 researchers with MSC
Iatt+, Ib+ Mb+ E2:0 effects
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
Referral single case study N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
Margolis et al. 1996 EC ? HV + office vs office
wkly-biwkly pre, primi, lowSES
Paediatric & family practice
E1:n= HV+office E2:n= office C:n=routine care
n=14/93 recruited
HV: 3 nurses service use+
Minde & Tidmarsh 1997
PD MIT +/ PT +/ PPT +/ P-groups
<5->10 sessions teen, Cau, m-c, <marr, Is with disruptive behaviour
C’s hospital E: n=57 C: N/A
n=3 multi: 20 staff Ib+
Nye et al. 1995 MRCOP
RCT HV: PT&MG of Ms vs both Ps
10 months wkly-biwkly 28 sessions
Cau, alcoholism Court records re drunk driving
E1:n=20 PT Ms E2:n=22 PT both Ps C:n=23 /
n=10 (E2) HV: MSc P or SW Ib+
Table IV.5 Multi-modal/method interventions
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Oates et al. 1995 KEEPSAFE
HV + preschool 1 year biwkly
abused Cs Multi E: n=24 C:N/A
N/A HV: therapist Ib+, Ic+
Scott 1998 behavioural
individual +/or group behavioural therapy
indiv: 12 hrs median group: 12 weeks, 2hrs wkly
Ps with serious parenting problems
description C: N/A
therapist Ib+
Seifer et al. 1991 Interaction trans-disciplinary model
Ps counselling & video interaction coaching (IC) for Is with developmental disabilities
10 months IC: 6 sessions P-group: wkly
Is with developmental disabilities
Multi: e.g. hospitals, practitioners,
E:n=23 IC + Ps counselling group C:n=P-group, no IC but video watching
P, SW Ib+, Id+ Mb+,
Sokol et al. 1980 M&I prof &/or para
HV+PE+ antenatal care
lowSES, preg, 2yr cohort
hospital E:n=3307 C:n=1679
HV: professionals, community health aides
Ih+, Imortality+, Ipreterm+
St.Pierre and Layzer 1999 CCDP
HV + PE birth-5 years HV: 30-90mins wkly/biwkly PE: 30mins biwly
lowSES, mix-ethn, disadvantaged
21-24 sites E: n=2213 C:n=2217
64% all sites at 5 yrs
para-HV null results in all domains
v. Hofacker & Papousek 1998 MIRIP
D MII + IG Cau, m-c, regulatory, attachment & autonomy/control disturbed Is
paediatrician E1:n=182 disturbed E2:n=63 younger C:n=49 non-disturbed matched
8.2 refusals, 4.9% dropouts
multi: paediatrician, developmental P, PSY
(Ib+ Mb+) description only serial & parallel methods
Table IV.5 Multi-modal/method interventions
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Wagner & Clayton 1999 PAT
education HV + case management + PE
prenatal-2 years SV-PAT: lowSES, <Latina Teen-PAT: lowSES, teens
SV-PAT E:n=298 HV C:n=199 Teen-PAT: E1:n=175 HV + PAT + case management E2:n=174 case management E3:n=177 PAT C:n=178
SV-PAT: 43% from programme 27% from evaluation
para-HV Id0, Ih0, Mk(+), Mb(+), Mrepr (+) dose effects
Ware & Osofsky 1987 MIP
HV + drop-in-centre + 24hr- telephone line
birth-30months HV : wkly- reducing centre : wkly
mix-ethn teens E :n= 54 C1 :n=24 routine care C2 :n=28 non-engagers
30-40% 2/4 HV s
Para-HV Ia0, Ic+/0 Mb+ interaction+/0 sleeper effects overall null results
Wasik et al. 1990 CARE
HV: PE + day centre vs home PE
birth-6 years wkly-reducing
at-risk, Bl, single
E1:n=14 HV-PE + day care centre E2:n=23 HV-PE C:n= /
9% HV: teachers, SW, nurses
Ic+ Mb0
Widmayer & Field 1981
TRANS NBAS with/ without MABI (adaptation of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
lowSES, Bl, teen, preterm
hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n= questionnaire on I-development total n=30
Researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Table IV.6 Group-based interventions
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Baker et al. 1999 HIPPY HV + preschool + P-groups vs preschool
2 years HV: 30-60mins biwkly P-group: biwkly
<AA, limited Ed Ps & preschoolers
3 sites E:n=37-63 HV + preschool + P-group C:n=32-66 preschool
9-28% for sites para-HV varied for cohorts/sites Ic+/-
Brayden et al 1993 HV + indiv. C + P-groups
Prenatal-2 years HV: mthly groups: 44 biwkly, 5 prenatal
preg, lowSES, at-risk hospital E:n=141 high-risk C1:n=122 high-risk routine care C2:n=264 low-risk routine care
10-20% para-HV multi-team
Ia/n0/- (!) service use+ null results
Egeland & Erickson 1990 STEEP
ATT HV: PPT + P-group
Prenatal-1 year Biwkly
at-risk, primi, lowSES, lowEd
E:n=74 C:n=80
Iatt0 Mmh+, Mb+, Mrepr+
Green et al. 1981 PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
abusing Ps referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+ Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective dose effects
Heinicke et al. 1999 UCLA
ATT other
HV + MI-group Prenatal-2/4 years wkly-reducing group: 17 (0-43)
preg, primi, lowSES, at-risk, ethn-mix
paediatric clinic
E:n=31 HV+MIgroup C:n=33 follow-up
n=6/70 mental health professionals
Ib+, Iatt+, Ic0 Mb+, Mrepr+, Mmh0
IHDP 1990 EC other
RCT HV + centre + MIgroup
Birth-3 years wkly-reducing
LBW, preterm, ethn-mix
8 hospitals E1:n=377 HV+centre+group E2:n=330 El-low compliers C:n=512/608 follow-up
7% of recruited
HV: prof./ graduates
Ic+, Ih-/0(NOFT), Ib0, compliers<Ic+, Ib+ Mb+(HOME)
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
referral single case study N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
Minde & Tidmarsh 1997 PD MIT +/ PT +/ PPT +/ P-groups
teen, Cau, m-c, <marr, Is with disruptive behaviour
C’s hospital E: n=57 C: N/A
n=3 multi: 20 staff Ib+
Table IV.6 Group-based interventions
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Parr 1997 PIPPIN
ATT other
HV + PT-group Prenatal-18wks1hr wkly
low-risk, >Wh mixSES, primi,
E:n=98 HV+group C:n=114 waiting list
n=32 PI-facilitators Mmh+, Mrepr+, Mb+, Matt+ Fb+, Fmh+, Frepr+
Proulx & Minde 1995
PD group-based PT for fathers & Is
10 weeks 2.5hrs wkly
fathers unable to relate to toddlers
E:n=5 father’s & I’s group C: N/A
PSY, art therapist
Fk+, Fb+
Puckering et al. 1994 MP
empowerment Mellow Parenting group intervention (MP)
4 months wkly
hard-to-reach Ms with severe parenting problems
varied E:n=22 MP n=7/29 MP-therapists Ia/n+ Mb+ interaction+
Puckering et al. 1996 MP
empowerment Mellow Parenting group intervention (MP)
4 months wkly
Linda & Andrew aged 23mths, M-I-interaction & eating problems
single case study: MP
N/A MP-therapists Ib+ Mb+, Mmh+/0, Mrepr+, Mpd+
Scott 1998 behavioural individual +/or group behavioural therapy
indiv: 12 hrs median group: 12 weeks, 2hrs wkly
Ps with serious parenting problems
Description C: N/A
therapist Ib+
Seifer et al. 1991 interaction, trans-disciplinary model
Ps counselling & video interaction coaching (IC) for Is with developmental disabilities
10 months IC: 6 sessions P-group: wkly
Is with developmental disabilities
multi: e.g. hospitals, practitioners,
E:n=23 IC + Ps counselling group C:n=P-group, no IC but video watching
P, SW Ib+, Id+ Mb+,
St.Pierre and Layzer 1999 CCDP
HV + PE-group birth-5 years HV: 30-90mins wkly/biwkly PE: 30mins biwly
lowSES, mix-ethn, disadvantaged
21-24 sites E: n=2213 C:n=2217
64% all sites at 5 yrs
para-HV null results in all domains
Strayhorn & Weidman 1991
P-group training in interaction
0-12.5 hrs training
lowSES, mix-ethn, Cs with behaviour problems
varied, e.g. Head Start
E:n=50 extensive training C:n=48 pamphlet
n=21 research assistant Ic0, Ib+ Mb+
Table IV.7 Day care centre studies
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
ABECEDARIAN Ramey & Campbell 1984 Horacek et al 1987
HV, nutrition & educational day care centre
HV: 3 years, 15 sessions/yr centre: 5 years 6-8hrs daily
lowSES, Bl, single, cog. disadvantaged
hospital & social services
E1:n=41/25 pre-school & school E2:n=24 pre-school E3:n=21 school C:n=44/90 low-risk
20.7% overall teachers Ic+ Cs with more services benefit more (dose effects)
Baker et al. 1999 HIPPY
HV + preschool + P-groups vs preschool
2 years HV: 30-60mins biwkly P-group: biwkly
<AA, limited Ed Ps & preschoolers
3 sites E:n=37-63 HV + preschool + P-group C:n=32-66 preschool
9-28% for sites para-HV varied for cohorts/sites Ic+/-
IHDP 1990 EC other
RCT HV + centre + MIgroup
birth-3 years wkly-reducing
LBW, preterm, ethn-mix
8 hospitals E1:n=377 HV+centre+group E2:n=330 El-low compliers C:n=512/608 follow-up
7% of recruited
HV: prof./ graduates
Ic+, Ih-/0(NOFT), Ib0, compliers<Ic+, Ib+ Mb+(HOME)
Kunkel 1981
SLT others
individual residential therapy
18 months Cs: daily families: wkly
abused children aged 4-12yrs
referrals E:n=24 C: N/A
N/A therapists Ca/n+, Cmh+ 83% successful
Oates et al. 1995 KEEPSAFE
HV + preschool 1 year biwkly
abused Cs multi E: n=24 C:N/A
N/A HV: therapist Ib+, Ic+
Wasik et al. 1990 CARE
HV: PE + day centre vs home PE
birth-6 years wkly-reducing
at-risk, Bl, single E1:n=14 HV-PE + day care centre E2:n=23 HV-PE C:n= /
9% HV: teachers, SW, nurses
Ic+ Mb0
Table IV.8 Directed at parents only
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 1998 behaviour vs representations
ATT MIT: behav. vs behav + repres level
3 months 1.5-3hrs 4 visits
Primi, m-c, insecure Ms
records nurses
E1 :n=10 behav. E2 :n=10 beh + repr C:n=10
N/A HV: 2 authors Iatt0 Mb+ (E1&2) insecureM>behav dismissingM>repres
Belsky 1985, 1986 PIFDP
NBAS active exposure to NBAS, Ms only vs couple
Primi, Wh, marr obstetric practice E1:n=15 couple NBAS E2:n=15 Ms NBAS C1:n=15 C2:n=15 verbal report of NBAS
n=7/67 dropouts Pb+ interaction 0
Black et al. 1994 SPICE
EC HV : MIT + clinic vs clinic
prenatal-18mths 1hr biwkly HV :12 (0-32) clinic:25 (0-75) mthly-reducing
LowSES, drug abusing, single, lowEd, <AA
prenatal clinic E:n=31 HV+clinic C:n=29 clinic
10% refuse n=27
2 community nurses
Ic(+)/0 Mb+ service use(+)
Collaborative Group on Preterm Birth Prevention 1993
Ed: preterm birth prevention + examination
prenatally for 16(?) weeks wkly examinations from 20-24 wks gestation
Preg, lowSES, mix-ethn, at-risk for preterm labour
3 hospital E:n=1200 high-risk + Ed + examinations C:n=1195 high-risk /
n=1011 refusals nurses null results
Davis & Spurr, 1998
Guidance and support
HV, manualised From referral (Mean 2.5 yrd) for 2-25 sessions (average 7.8)
Low SES , referred, behav probs and/or parent depression
Health visitrs, GP or self
E: n=55 C: comparison n=38 (routine care)
31% initially (60/87), further drop out 5
Specially trained HV or mental health worker
Mmh+, Mself esteem+ M Stress+ Mrep+, Home environment+ Cb+
Free et al. 1996 accuracy in interpreting C’s emotion: Ms with vs without psychotherapy
1 session of rating photographs
Depressed Ms & their Cs, m-c, <Cau
day-care centre, P-groups, newspapers, advertising, clinics
E:n=43 depressed Ms with psychotherapy C1:n=10 depressed Ms without therapy C2:n=31 non-depressed Ms
psychotherapy increases accuracy in interpretation of (especially neg.) emotions in depressed Ms & their Cs
Kitzman et al. 1997 Prenatal/Early IP
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: 1 vs 2 years
prenatal-2 yrs 7(0-18) prenatal 26 (0-71)postnatal
AA, preg, primi, lowSES, single
obstetric care system
E1:n=228 2yrs HV +screen +transp E2:n=230 1yr HV +screen +transp C1:n=515 screen+transp C2:n=166 transport
4% at 2yrs nurses Ih+/0,Ic0, Ib0 Mb+/, Mh+, Mrepr+/0, Mpd0 pregnancies+ service use0 (i.e. immunisations)
Table IV.8 Directed at parents only
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Liptak et al. 1983 NBAS NBAS 1 session m-c, Wh, primi, <marr
hospital E: n= NBAS + routine care C1:n= 1 visit by author C2:n= phys. I-examination in front of M total n=75
n=9 refusals n=4/75 dropouts
Mb+ interaction0
Myers 1982 NBAS active P-exposure to NBAS-exam in hospital, Ms vs fathers only
1 45-60mins session
Primi, m-c, <Wh, couples
hospital E1:n= Ms NBAS E2:n= Fs NBAS C:n= no NBAS total n=42
n=2 Pk+, Pb+/0, Prepr(+)
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
prenatal-2 yrs 1hr15mins wkly-reducing 8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
antenatal clinic E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Wagner & Clayton 1999 PAT
education HV + case management + PE
prenatal-2 years SV-PAT: lowSES, <Latina Teen-PAT: lowSES, teens
SV-PAT E:n=298 HV C:n=199 Teen-PAT: E1:n=175 HV + PAT + case management E2:n=174 case management E3:n=177 PAT C:n=178
SV-PAT: 43% from programme 27% from evaluation
para-HV Id0, Ih0, Mk(+), Mb(+), Mrepr (+) dose effects
Wendland-Carro et al. 1999
ATT NBAS
video & talk re: M-I-interaction vs caregiving skills
1 hr only LowSES, primi, married
maternity ward E:n=17 video + talk re M-I-interaction C:n=19 video + talk re caregiving
n=2 researcher Mb+ interaction+
Table IV.8 Directed at parents only
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Widmayer & Field 1981
TRANS NBAS with/ without MABI (adaptation of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
LowSES, Bl, teen, preterm
hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n= questionnaire on I-development total n=30
researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Wingerd Bristor et al 1984
parent coaching / skills training
birth-3 days (days 1, 2, &7 post-birth)
Primi, mix-SES, intact families
private paediatric clinic
E:n=21 P-coaching C1:n=21 routine care C2:n=21 exp. decliners
n=23 Ib+/0 Mb+/0 interaction+
Table IV.9 Directed at parents & children
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Kaukonen & Tamminen 1998
PD systems behavioural
psychiatric I-family day-ward for all family members
3 weeks daily 9:30am-2pm
At/multiple-risk dysfunctional Families
Referrals E:n=81 families C: N/A
multi: nurses, PSY, family therapists
26% re-admission, 26% successful, 29% continued treatment at local guidance clinic
Kunkel 1981
SLT others
individual residential therapy
18 months Cs: daily families: wkly
Abused children aged 4-12yrs
Referrals E:n=24 C: N/A
N/A therapists Ca/n+, Cmh+ 83% successful
McDonough 1993 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
4 months HV: 3 visits, 6-wkly playroom: 12 sessions, wkly
Lisa & Sam Jr, aged 4 mths, NOFT
Referral 1 single case study N/A therapist Ih+, Imh+ Mb+, Mpd+ interaction+
McDonough 1995 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
1 hr wkly multi-problem, resistant families: 2 FTT-cases: 1 resistant, 1 cogn. Limited family
Referral 2 single case studies N/A therapist Ih+ Pb+, Pk+ interaction +
Muir 1992 WWW
PD object relations
WWW 12 (8-20) sessions 50mins wkly
Jan & son Troy, aged 10.5mths, NOFT
Referral single case study N/A therapist Ib+, Ih+, Id+ Mrepr+, Mb+
Muir & Thorlaksdottir 1994 WWW
PD object relations
WWW 6-13 weeks 1hr wkly
Referral 4 single case studies N/A therapist
Powell & Grantham-McGregor 1989
HV 2 years wkly, biwkly, or mthly
LowSES, <Bl, <lowEd, <single
Health clinic E1st study:n=152 wkly or mthly HV E2nd study:n=58 wkly HV Cs: n= no HV
8.5% (1st study)
para-HV: ethnic peers 8 wks training
Ic+ dose effects sleeper effect?
v. Hofacker & Papousek 1998 MIRIP
D MII + IG Cau, m-c, regulatory, attachment & autonomy/control disturbed Is
Paediatrician E1:n=182 disturbed E2:n=63 younger C:n=49 non-disturbed matched
8.2 refusals, 4.9% dropouts
multi: paediatrician, developmental P, PSY
(Ib+ Mb+) description only serial & parallel methods
Table IV.10 Home visiting professionals
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
ABECEDARIAN Ramey & Campbell 1984 Horacek et al 1987
HV, nutrition & educational day care centre
HV: 3 years, 15 sessions/yr centre: 5 years 6-8hrs daily
LowSES, Bl, single, cog. disadvantaged
hospital & social services
E1:n=41/25 pre-school & school E2:n=24 pre-school E3:n=21 school C:n=44/90 low-risk
20.7% overall
teachers Ic+ Cs with more services benefit more (dose effects)
Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 1998 behaviour vs representations
ATT MIT: behav. vs behav + repres level
3 months 1.5-3hrs 4 visits
Primi, m-c, insecure Ms
records nurses
E1 :n=10 behav. E2 :n=10 beh + repr C:n=10
N/A HV: 2 authors Iatt0 Mb+ (E1&2) insecureM>behav dismissingM>repres
Barrera et al. 1990
TRANS RCT: HV:DP vs MII, pre vs fullterm
1 year 1-2hrs wkly-reducing, 23 (12-28) visits
Pre+fullterm, LBW, m-c
maternity ward
E1:n=16 DP, pre E2:n=22 MII, pre C1:n=24 fullterm C2:n=21 preterm
HV:4 infant therapists
Ib+, Iatt+ MII: att+ DP: b+ (pre=full)
Booth et al. 1987 HV : MIT vs didactic/info (test of 2-step model)
prenatal-1 year n=95 preg, Wh, multi-risk
health department
E1:n=44% MIT E2:n=56% didactic/info
HV: nurse Mb+, Mmh+ interaction+ dose effect
Carpenter et al. 1983 SIP
HV: high vs low-risk
birth-7 years biwkly-mthly
general population, high-risk Is
records E: HV high-risk C: low-risk
n=1/2000 HV: research health visitor
I-mortality+
Daro & Harding 1999 HFA
HV prenatal-3/5 years wkly or less
at-risk, mix-ethn, mix-SES newborns
E: high-risk C: low-risk
varied, no pattern
HV: professionals with degree
Ih+/0, Ia/n+/0, Id0 Mpd+/0, Mss0 interaction+ service use+/0
Davis & Spurr, 1998 Guidance and support
HV, manualised From referral (Mean 2.5 yrd) for 2-25 sessions (average 7.8)
Low SES , referred, behav probs and/or parent depression
Health visitrs, GP or self
E: n=55 C: comparison n=38 (routine care)
31% initially (60/87), further drop out 5
Specially trained HV or mental health worker
Mmh+, Mself esteem+ M Stress+ Mrep+, Home environment+ Cb+
Egeland & Erickson 1990 STEEP
ATT HV: PPT + P-group
prenatal-1 year biwkly
at-risk, primi, lowSES, lowEd
E:n=74 C:n=80
Iatt0 Mmh+, Mb+, Mrepr+
Table IV.10 Home visiting professionals
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Field et al. 1980 RCT HV: pre vs fullterm Is, teen vs adult Ms
1/2hr biwkly
LowSES, Bl, teen, single, preterm
E1:n=30 preterm teen C1:n=30 fullterm teen C2:n=30 fullterm teen C3:n=30 preterm adult C4:n=30 fullterm adult
10% HV: trained interventionist & student
Ih+, Imh+, Ic+? Mrepr+, Mb+ interaction+
Field et al. 1982 HV-based PT in I-stimulation vs nursery-based paid PT-training
Birth-6 months HV: biwkly nursery: 4hrs daily
LowSES, Bl, teen
E1:n=40 HV PT E2:n=40 nursery PT (teacher aide) C:n=40
N/A HV: psychology student with exp-teens as teacher aides
Ih+, Id+, Imh+, Ic+ Mpd+ pregnancies+ dose effects sleeper effects
Gray et al. 1977 HV vs routine care
birth-2 years wkly
preg, at-risk Ms hospital E:n=50 high-risk HV C1:n=50 high-risk routine care C2:n=50 low-risk routine care
N/A HV: public health nurse, & lay health visitor
Ih+, Ia/n0, Id0 Mb0 service use 0 (immunisations)
Green et al. 1981 PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
abusing Ps referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+ Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective dose effects
Hancock 1998 HV: Iwaniec (1995)
1-2 years biwkly-monthly 12 sessions
Amy, 25yrs, FTT, emotionally abused
referral single case study N/A HV: health visitor
Ib+, Imh+ Mb+, Mmh+
Heinicke et al. 1999 UCLA
ATT other
HV + MIgroup prenatal-2/4 years wkly-reducing group: 17 (0-43)
preg, primi, lowSES, at-risk, ethn-mix
paediatric clinic
E:n=31 HV+MIgroup C:n=33 follow-up
n=6/70 HV: mental health professionals
Ib+, Iatt+, Ic0 Mb+, Mrepr+, Mmh0
Huxley & Warner 1993 CIP
HV: MIT vs routine care
prenatal-3yrs at-risk, parenting problems
multi E:n=20 MIT+routine care C:n=20 routine care
n=20 HV: public health nurse
Ia/n+, Ih+ Mb+, Mrepr+
IHDP 1990 EC other
RCT HV + centre + MIgroup
birth-3 years wkly-reducing
LBW, preterm, ethn-mix
8 hospitals E1:n=377 HV+centre+group E2:n=330 El-low compliers C:n=512/608 follow-up
7% of recruited
HV: prof./ graduates
Ic+, Ih-/0(NOFT), Ib0, compliers<Ic+, Ib+ Mb+(HOME)
Table IV.10 Home visiting professionals
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Juffer et al. 1997 ATT HV: MIT + book vs book
3 visits interracially adopted Is
adoption agency
E1:n=30 MIT+book E2:n=30 book C:n=30 /
n=17 HV: 3 researchers with MSC
Iatt+, Ib+ Mb+ E2:0 effects
Kitzman et al. 1997 Prenatal/Early IP
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: 1 vs 2 years
prenatal-2 yrs 7(0-18) prenatal 26 (0-71)postnatal
AA, preg, primi, lowSES, single
obstetric care system
E1:n=228 2yrs HV +screen +transp E2:n=230 1yr HV +screen +transp C1:n=515 screen+transp C2:n=166 transport
4% at 2yrs HV: nurses Ih+/0,Ic0, Ib0 Mb+/, Mh+, Mrepr+/0, Mpd0 pregnancies+ service use0 (i.e. immunisations)
Larson (1980) Pre- vs postnatal visits
HV: pre- vs postnatal visits
prenatal-15 months 10-11 visits 1 prenatal visit
preg, Engl/French Canadian, working class
hospital E1:n=pre- & post-natal visits E2:n=post-natal visits C:n=
n=25 HV with degee in psychology
Ih+ Mb+ interaction+ postnatal visits not enough
Lieberman et al. 1991 PD HV: MIT 1 year 1.5hrs wkly
lowSES, HIS, immigrants, anxious dyads
paediatric clinic
E:n=29 MIT anxious C1:n=23 anxious C2:n=30 secure
n=18 HV: bilingual MSC psycholgists or SW
Ib+ Mrepr0, Mb+
Lyons-Ruth et al. 1990
HV: prof vs para-professional visitors
13.3 (9-18) mths 1hr wkly 46.7 visits mthly drop-in hour
lowSES, depressed, inadequate Ms
HES-services E1:n= prof HV+P-group E2:n=10 para HV+drop-in-hour C1:n=10 / high-risk C2:n=35 / community Is/non-depressed Ms
n=9 para-HV: ethnic mothers, prof-HV: MSC-psychologist
Iatt+, Ic+, Mb0 para=prof service
Margolis et al. 1996 EC ? HV + office vs office
wkly-biwkly
pre, primi, lowSES
paediatric & family practice
E1:n= HV+office E2:n= office C:n=routine care
n=14/93 recruited
HV: 3 nurses service use+
Nye et al. 1995 MRCOP
RCT HV: PT&MG of Ms vs both Ps
10 months wkly-biwkly 28 sessions
Cau, alcoholism court records re drunk driving
E1:n=20 PT Ms E2:n=22 PT both Ps C:n=23 /
n=10 (E2) HV: MSc P or SW
Ib+
Table IV.10 Home visiting professionals
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Oates et al. 1995 KEEPSAFE
HV + preschool 1 year biwkly
abused Cs multi E: n=24 C:N/A
N/A HV: therapist Ib+, Ic+
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
prenatal-2 yrs 1hr15mins wkly-reducing 8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
antenatal clinic
E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% HV: nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Parr 1997 PIPPIN
ATT other
HV + PT-group prenatal-18wks 1hr wkly
low-risk, >Wh mixSES, primi,
E:n=98 HV+group C:n=114 waiting list
n=32 HV: PI-facilitators
Mmh+, Mrepr+, Mb+, Matt+ Fb+, Fmh+, Frepr+
Puura et al. 2000 EEP
EU/WHO
HV + need/risk assessment
prenatal-onwards 1pre- & 1postnatal assessment wkly sessions
n=1000 at-risk & low-risk families in 5 countries
E1:n=50 no-need/low-risk E2:n=50 in-need C1:n=50 no-need C2:n=50 in-need
N/A HV: primary health care professionals
not available yet
Rauh et al. 1988 MITP
TRANS intensive NBAS in hospital & home
3 months 11 1hr sessions (hospital: 7, home: 4 sessions)
Ps of LBW Is intensive care unit
E1:n=25 LBW NBAS C1:n=29 LBW C1:n=28 normal BW
N=15 intensive care nurse
Ic+ Mrepr+
Ross 1984 HV : PE birth-1 year biwkly-monthly
premature, lowSES, mix-ethn
medical centre E:n=40 HV-PE premature C:n=40 matched premature
n=5 HV: nurse, paediatric occ. Therapist
Ic+, Imh+, Id0 Mb+, Mrepr0
Sokol et al. 1980 M&I prof &/or para
HV+PE+ antenatal care
lowSES, preg, 2yr cohort
hospital E:n=3307 C:n=1679
HV: professionals, community health aides
Ih+, Imortality+, Ipreterm+
Table IV.10 Home visiting professionals
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Taylor & Beauchamp 1988 EC HV: PE birth-1 month 4, 90mins sessions
preg, primi, mix-SES, mix-ethn, mix-Ed
hospital E :n= hosp & home PE C:n= routine care
n=12/42 HV: student nurse
Mrepr+, Mb+, Mk+ interaction+
Teerikangas et al. 1998 other HV: family counselling
5 years 50 sessions
mixed-risk maternity clinic
E:n=54 HV counselling C:n=46
High HV: psychiatric Nurses
Imh+
van den Boom 1994 ATT HV: behavioural MIT
3months 2hrs 3wkly
irritable Is, Cau, lowSES, primi
hospital midwives
E1:n=25 MIT + pre-assessment E2:n=25 MIT C1:n=25 pre-treatment assessment C2:n=25
100/588 with complete data
HV: author Ib+, Ic+, Iatt+ Mb+ interaction+
Widmayer & Field 1981 TRANS NBAS with/ without MABI (adaptation of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
lowSES, Bl, teen, preterm
hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n= questionnaire on I-development total n=30
researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Wright et al. 1998 PP
HV 1 visit or more NOFT, <2yrs health district E:n=95 HV+routine care C:n=109 routine care
complex HV: research nurse, health visitor, dietician
Ih+
Table IV.11 Home visiting – lay workers
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Baker et al. 1999 HIPPY
HV + preschool + P-groups vs preschool
2 years HV: 30-60mins biwkly P-group: biwkly
<AA, limited Ed Ps & preschoolers
3 sites E:n=37-63 HV + preschool + P-group C:n=32-66 preschool
9-28% for sites
para-HV varied for cohorts/sites Ic+/-
Black et al. 1995 EC HV with /without clinic
1 year 1hr wkly 19.2 (0-47) visits
lowSES, <AA, <single, lowEd, NOFT
paediatric primary clinic
C:n=64 HV + clinic C:n=66 clinic
20% not recruited n=14
3 para-HV Ic+, Ib+ Mb+
Brayden et al 1993 HV + indiv. C + P-groups
prenatal-2 years HV: mthly groups: 44 biwkly, 5 prenatal
preg, lowSES, at-risk
hospital E:n=141 high-risk C1:n=122 high-risk routine care C2:n=264 low-risk routine care
10-20% para-HV multi-team
Ia/n0/- (!) service use+ null results
Duggan et al. 1999 HSP
HV 3-5 years 1-4 visits mthly
lowSES, mix-ethn, at-risk Is/Cs
statewide agency
E:n=373 HV C1:n=270 / C2:n=41 / testing ctrl
51% & 12% para-HV Id+/0, Ia/n0 Mb+/0, Mpd0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+/0 service use+/0
Grantham-McGregor et al. 1991 JS
HV : nutrition with/without stimulation
2 years 1hr wkly
lowSES, growth stunted Is
health clinic E1:n=32 stunted, nutr&stimul E2:n=30 stunted stimulated E3:n= nutrition C1: n=33 / stunted C2:n=32 / non-stunted
para-Hv: ethnic peer
Id+
Hardy and Streett 1989 HV: PE + telephone line
birth-2 years 40-60mins wkly-reducing
lowSES, <Bl, <primi, <single
E:n=131 HV C:n=132 routine care
n=27 para-HV: ethnic peer
Ih+, Ia/n+ service use+
Johnson et al. 1993 Community MP
support HV birth-1 year low SES, primi health authority E:n=127 HV + routine care E:n=105 routine care
11% para-HV: 30 ethnic peers 4 wks training
Ia/n0 Mb+, Mmh+ service use+ (immunisation)
Table IV.11 Home visiting – lay workers
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Luster et al. 1996 TIES
support HV: support/no PE
(birth?)-5 years wkly
lowSES, primi, teen
E:n=72 HV C:n=70 less intensive phone line service
6 para-HV Id0, Ic0 null results
Marcenko & Spence, 1994 support HV Prenatally-1year wkly-reducing
preg, AA, lowSES, at-risk for out-of-home placement
obstetric clinic E:n=110 HV+routine care C:n=77 routine care
n=58 para-HV: ethnic peer
Mss+, Mmh+, Mb0 service use+ out-of-home placement0
McDonald Culp et al. 1998 teen vs adult
education HV 6 months 1hr wkly
preg, low SES, teen&adult, <Cau,
health department
E:n=61 C: N/A
para-HV: 30hrs training
Mk+, Mb+ service use+ teen catch up on Mk
Powell & Grantham-McGregor 1989
HV 2 years wkly, biwkly, or mthly
lowSES, <Bl, <lowEd, <single
health clinic E1st study:n=152 wkly or mthly HV E2nd study:n=58 wkly HV Cs: n= no HV
8.5% (1st study)
para-HV: ethnic peers 8 wks training
Ic+ dose effects sleeper effect?
Scarr & McCartney 1988 MCHP
HV: PE (vs book)
2 years biwkly 46 visits
lowSES E:n=78 HV-PE C:n=39 /
7% refusals n=4 re data
para-HV: ethnic peers
Ic(+) Mb(+) null/ceiling effects
Siegel et al. 1980 ATT? HV vs early extended contact
birth onwards hospital: 5hrs daily 9 home visits
lowSES with normal vs complicated labour /pregnancy
hospital E1:n=47 & 60 HV & ext. contact E2:n=50 extended contact E3:n=53 HV C:n=52 & 59 routine care
n=204/525 para-HV 200hrs training
Ia/n0 Mb(+) ext. contact only service use0 HV:null results
Spencer et al. 1989 SMFWP
support HV: support/no PE
Prenatal-1 year preg, at-risk, non-Asian, n=1288
2 maternity units
E:n= support C:n= routine care
n=52 para-HV with personality/life experiences
Ih0 null results
St.Pierre and Layzer 1999 CCDP
HV + PE birth-5 years HV: 30-90mins wkly/biwkly PE: 30mins biwly
lowSES, mix-ethn, disadvantaged
21-24 sites E: n=2213 C:n=2217
64% all sites at 5 yrs
para-HV null results in all domains
Table IV.11 Home visiting – lay workers
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Wagner & Clayton 1999 PAT
education HV + case management + PE
Prenatal-2 years SV-PAT: lowSES, <Latina Teen-PAT: lowSES, teens
SV-PAT E:n=298 HV C:n=199 Teen-PAT: E1:n=175 HV + PAT + case management E2:n=174 case management E3:n=177 PAT C:n=178
SV-PAT: 43% from programme 27% from evaluation
para-HV Id0, Ih0, Mk(+), Mb(+), Mrepr (+) dose effects
Ware & Osofsky 1987 MIP
HV + drop-in-centre + 24hr-telephone line
birth-30 months HV: wkly-reducing Centre: wkly
mix-ethn teens E: n=54 C1:n=24 routine care C2:n=28 non-engagers
30-40% 2/4 HVs
para-HV Ia0, Ic+/0 Mb+ interaction+/0 sleeper effects overall null results
Table IV.12 Prenatally started programmes
Study Model Iintervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Barth 1991 CPEP EC HV 6 months 11 (5-20) visits
preg, mix-ethn, lowSES, at-risk
HES-services E:n=97 HV C:n=94 routine care
n=122 para-HV: ethnic peer
Ia/n0 null results
Black et al. 1994 SPICE
EC HV : MIT + clinic vs clinic
Prenatal-18mths 1hr biwkly HV :12 (0-32) Clinic:25 (0-75) mthly-reducing
lowSES, drug abusing, single, lowEd, <AA
prenatal clinic E:n=31 HV+clinic C:n=29 clinic
10% refuse n=27
2 community nurses
Ic(+)/0 Mb+ service use(+)
Booth et al. 1987 HV : MIT vs didactic/info (test of 2-step model)
Prenatal-1 year n=95 preg, Wh, multi-risk
health department
E1:n=44% MIT E2:n=56% didactic/info
nurse Mb+, Mmh+ interaction+ dose effect
Brayden et al 1993 HV + indiv. C + P-groups
Prenatal-2 years HV: mthly Groups: 44 biwkly, 5 prenatal
preg, lowSES, at-risk
hospital E:n=141 high-risk C1:n=122 high-risk routine care C2:n=264 low-risk routine care
10-20% para-HV multi-team
Ia/n0/- (!) service use+ null results
Collaborative Group on Preterm Birth Prevention 1993
Ed: preterm birth prevention + examination
Prenatally for 16(?) weeks Wkly examinations from 20-24 wks gestation
preg, lowSES, mix-ethn, at-risk for preterm labour
3 hospital E:n=1200 high-risk + Ed + examinations C:n=1195 high-risk /
n=1011 refusals
nurses null results
Daro & Harding 1999 HFA
HV Prenatal-3/5 years Wkly or less
at-risk, mix-ethn, mix-SES newborns
E: high-risk C: low-risk
varied, no pattern
professionals with degree
Ih+/0, Ia/n+/0, Id0 Mpd+/0, Mss0 interaction+ service use+/0
Egeland & Erickson 1990 STEEP
ATT HV: PPT + P-group
Prenatal-1 year Biwkly
at-risk, primi, lowSES, lowEd
E:n=74 C:n=80
Iatt0 Mmh+, Mb+, Mrepr+
Table IV.12 Prenatally started programmes
Study Model Iintervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Heinicke et al. 1999 UCLA
ATT other
HV + MIgroup Prenatal-2/4 years Wkly-reducing Group: 17 (0-43)
preg, primi, lowSES, at-risk, ethn-mix
paediatric clinic
E:n=31 HV+MIgroup C:n=33 follow-up
n=6/70 mental health professionals
Ib+, Iatt+, Ic0 Mb+, Mrepr+, Mmh0
Huxley & Warner 1993 CIP
HV: MIT vs routine care
Prenatal-3yrs at-risk, parenting problems
multi E:n=20 MIT+routine care C:n=20 routine care
n=20 public health nurse
Ia/n+, Ih+ Mb+, Mrepr+
Kitzman et al. 1997 Prenatal/Early IP
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: 1 vs 2 years
Prenatal-2 yrs 7(0-18) prenatal 26 (0-71)postnatal
AA, preg, primi, lowSES, single
obstetric care system
E1:n=228 2yrs HV +screen +transp E2:n=230 1yr HV +screen +transp C1:n=515 scrreen+transp C2:n=166 transport
4% at 2yrs nurses Ih+/0,Ic0, Ib0 Mb+/, Mh+, Mrepr+/0, Mpd0 pregnancies+ service use0 (i.e. immunisations)
Larson (1980) Pre- vs postnatal visits
HV: pre- vs postnatal visits
Prenatal-15 months 10-11 visits 1 prenatal visit
preg, Engl/French Canadian, working class
hospital E1:n=pre- & post-natal visits E2:n=post-natal visits C:n=
n=25 HV with degee in psychology
Ih+ Mb+ interaction+ postnatal visits not enough
Marcenko & Spence, 1994 support HV Prenatally-1year Wkly-reducing
preg, AA, lowSES, at-risk for out-of-home placement
obstetric clinic E:n=110 HV+routine care C:n=77 routine care
n=58 para-HV: ethnic peer
Mss+, Mmh+, Mb0 service use+ out-of-home placement0
Margolis et al. 1996 EC ? HV + office vs office
Wkly-biwkly
pre, primi, lowSES
paediatric & family practice
E1:n= HV+office E2:n= office C:n=routine care
n=14/93 recruited
HV: 3 nurses service use+
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
Prenatal-2 yrs 1hr15mins wkly-reducing 8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
antenatal clinic E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Table IV.12 Prenatally started programmes
Study Model Iintervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Parr 1997 PIPPIN
ATT other
HV + PT-group Prenatal-18wks 1hr wkly
low-risk, >Wh mixSES, primi,
E:n=98 HV+group C:n=114 waiting list
n=32 PI-facilitators Mmh+, Mrepr+, Mb+, Matt+ Fb+, Fmh+, Frepr+
Puura et al. 2000 EEP
EU/WHO HV + need/risk assessment
Prenatal-onwards 1pre- & 1postnatal assessment wkly sessions
n=1000 at-risk & low-risk families in 5 countries
E1:n=50 no-need/low-risk E2:n=50 in-need C1:n=50 no-need C2:n=50 in-need
N/A primary health care professionals
not available yet
Sokol et al. 1980 M&I prof &/or para
HV+PE+ antenatal care
lowSES, preg, 2yr cohort
hospital E:n=3307 C:n=1679
professionals, community health aides
Ih+, Imortality+, Ipreterm+
Spencer et al. 1989 SMFWP
support HV: support/no PE
Prenatal-1 year preg, at-risk, non-Asian, n=1288
2 maternity units
E:n= support C:n= routine care
n=52 para-HV with personality/life experiences
Ih0 null results
Wagner & Clayton 1999 PAT
education HV + case management + PE
Prenatal-2 years
SV-PAT: lowSES, <Latina Teen-PAT: lowSES, teens
SV-PAT: E:n=298 HV C:n=199 Teen-PAT: E1:n=175 HV + PAT + case management E2:n=174 case management E3:n=177 PAT C:n=178
SV-PAT: 43% from programme 27% from evaluation
para-HV Id0, Ih0, Mk(+), Mb(+), Mrepr (+) dose effects
Table IV.13 Birth started programmes
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Belsky 1985, 1986 PIFDP
NBAS active exposure to NBAS, Ms only vs couple
primi, Wh, marr obstetric practice
E1:n=15 couple NBAS E2:n=15 Ms NBAS C1:n=15 C2:n=15 verbal report of NBAS
n=7/67 dropouts Pb+ interaction 0
Carpenter et al. 1983 SIP
HV: high vs low-risk
birth-7 years biwkly-mthly
General population, high-risk Is
records E: HV high-risk C: low-risk
n=1/2000 HV: research health visitor
I-mortality+
Duggan et al. 1999 HSP HV 3-5 years 1-4 visits mthly
lowSES, mix-ethn, at-risk Is/Cs
statewide agency
E:n=373 HV C1:n=270 / C2:n=41 / testing ctrl
51% & 12% para-HV Id+/0, Ia/n0 Mb+/0, Mpd0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+/0 service use+/0
Gray et al. 1977 HV vs routine care
birth-2 years wkly
preg, at-risk Ms hospital E:n=50 high-risk HV C1:n=50 high-risk routine care C2:n=50 low-risk routine care
N/A HV: public health nurse, & lay health visitor
Ih+, Ia/n0, Id0 Mb0 service use 0 (immunisations)
Hardy and Streett 1989 HV: PE + telephone line
birth-2 years 40-60mins wkly-reducing
lowSES, <Bl, <primi, <single
E:n=131 HV C:n=132 routine care
n=27 para-HV: ethnic peer
Ih+, Ia/n+ service use+
IHDP 1990 EC other
RCT HV + centre + MIgroup
birth-3 years wkly-reducing
LBW, preterm, ethn-mix
8 hospitals E1:n=377 HV+centre+group E2:n=330 El-low compliers C:n=512/608 follow-up
7% of recruited
HV: prof./ graduates
Ic+, Ih-/0(NOFT), Ib0, compliers<Ic+, Ib+ Mb+(HOME)
Johnson et al. 1993 Community MP
support HV birth-1 year low SES, primi health authority E:n=127 HV + routine care E:n=105 routine care
11% para-HV: 30 ethnic peers 4 wks training
Ia/n0 Mb+, Mmh+ service use+ (immunisation)
Lealman et al. 1983 support health visitor drop-in centre & telephone
birth-18 months wkly
at-risk non-Asian Is
E1:n=103 drop-in-centre, high-risk E2:n=199 social worker, high-risk C1:n=209 high risk C2:n=2291 low-risk
n=28 health visitor, social worker
Ia/n0/-, Ih0/- (!) service use0/- (!) null results
Table IV.13 Birth started programmes
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Leib et al. 1980 stimulation sensory enrichment programme
birth – hospital discharge ?
Preterm Is, Wh, m-c,
neonatal intensive care unit
E:n=14 stimulation C:n=14 routine care
nurses Id+, Ih0 (weight gain)
Liptak et al. 1983 NBAS NBAS 1 session m-c, Wh, primi, <marr
hospital E: n= NBAS + routine care C1:n= 1 visit by author C2:n= phys. I-examination in front of M total n=75
n=9 refusals n=4/75 dropouts
Mb+ interaction0
Luster et al. 1996 TIES
support HV: support/no PE
(birth?)-5 years wkly
LowSES, primi, teen
E:n=72 HV C:n=70 less intensive phone line service
6 para-HV Id0, Ic0 null results
Myers 1982 NBAS active P-exposure to NBAS-exam in hospital, Ms vs fathers only
1 45-60mins session
Primi, m-c, <Wh, couples
hospital E1:n= Ms NBAS E2:n= Fs NBAS C:n= no NBAS total n=42
n=2 Pk+, Pb+/0, Prepr(+)
Ross 1984 HV : PE birth-1 year biwkly-monthly
Premature, lowSES, mix-ethn
medical centre E:n=40 HV-PE premature C:n=40 matched premature
n=5 HV: nurse, paediatric occ. therapist
Ic+, Imh+, Id0 Mb+, Mrepr0
Schanberg & Field 1987 stimulation tactile kinesthetic stimulation
birth-10 days 45mins daily
premature, LBW neonates
hospital E:n=26 t/k-stimulation C:n= routine care
Ib+, Ih+, Id+ service use+ cost-effective early discharge
Siegel et al. 1980 ATT? HV vs early extended contact
birth onwards hospital: 5hrs daily 9 home visits
lowSES with normal vs complicated labour /pregnancy
hospital E1:n=47 & 60 HV & ext. contact E2:n=50 extended contact E3:n=53 HV C:n=52 & 59 routine care
n=204/525 para-HV 200hrs training
Ia/n0 Mb(+) ext. contact only service use0 HV:null results
Table IV.13 Birth started programmes
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
St.Pierre and Layzer 1999 CCDP
HV + PE birth-5 years HV: 30-90mins wkly/biwkly PE: 30mins biwly
lowSES, mix-ethn, disadvantaged
21-24 sites E: n=2213 C:n=2217
64% all sites at 5 yrs
para-HV null results in all domains
Taylor & Beauchamp 1988 EC HV: PE birth-1 month 4, 90mins sessions
preg, primi, mix-SES, mix-ethn, mix-Ed
hospital E :n= hosp & home PE C:n= routine care
n=12/42 HV: student nurse
Mrepr+, Mb+, Mk+ interaction+
Wagner & Clayton 1999 PAT
education HV + case management + PE
prenatal-2 years SV-PAT: lowSES, <Latina Teen-PAT: lowSES, teens
SV-PAT E:n=298 HV C:n=199 Teen-PAT: E1:n=175 HV + PAT + case management E2:n=174 case management E3:n=177 PAT C:n=178
SV-PAT: 43% from programme 27% from evaluation
para-HV Id0, Ih0, Mk(+), Mb(+), Mrepr (+) dose effects
Ware & Osofsky 1987 MIP
HV + drop-in-centre + 24hr-telephone line
birth-30 months HV: wkly-reducing centre: wkly
mix-ethn teens E: n=54 C1:n=24 routine care C2:n=28 non-engagers
30-40% 2/4 HVs
para-HV Ia0, Ic+/0 Mb+ interaction+/0 sleeper effects overall null results
Wendland-Carro et al. 1999 ATT NBAS
video & talk re: M-I-interaction vs caregiving skills
1 hr only lowSES, primi, married
maternity ward E:n=17 video + talk re M-I-interaction C:n=19 video + talk re caregiving
n=2 Researcher Mb+ interaction+
Widmayer & Field 1981 TRANS NBAS with/ without MABI (adaptation of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
lowSES, Bl, teen, preterm
hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n= questionnaire on I-development total n=30
researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Wingerd Bristor et al 1984 parent coaching / skills training
birth-3 days (days 1, 2, &7 post-birth)
primi, mix-SES, intact families
private paediatric clinic
E:n=21 P-coaching C1:n=21 routine care C2:n=21 exp. decliners
n=23 Ib+/0 Mb+/0 interaction+
Table IV.14 Later started programmes
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Baker et al. 1999 HIPPY HV + preschool + P-groups vs preschool
2 years HV: 30-60mins biwkly P-group: biwkly
<AA, limited Ed Ps & preschoolers
3 sites E:n=37-63 HV + preschool + P-group C:n=32-66 preschool
9-28% for sites
para-HV varied for cohorts/sites Ic+/-
Carter et al. 1991 AMIP PD mother-baby class
Case 1: 11 weeks Case 2: prenatal- 13 months
lowSES, teen referral 2 single case studies
N/A, but case 2 irregular attendance
therapist Id+, Imh+ Mb+/0 interaction+
Cohen et al. 1999 WWW vs PPT
PD WWW vs PPT 5 months 1 hr wkly 8-18 sessions
Is <30mths with att, b, sleep, eat problems
C’s mental health centre
E :n=34 WWW C:n=33 PPT
n=6 4 I-mental health therapists
Iatt+, Imh+, Ic+ Mb+/0, Mmh+, Mrepr+ WWW>PPT
Cordeiro 1997 PD PPT 6-24 months 12-12? sessions or more
Is<3 years with attachment,functional, behavioural problems
GPs, paediatricians
E:n=114 C: N/A
n=26 multi: PSY, clin. P, nurse
15.1%: not improved 56.5%: improved 28.3%: greatly improved Cs <24mths benefit more
Cramer 1998 Interactional Guidance (IG) vs Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PPT)
PD, IG IG vs PPT 6 sessions (max. 10 sessions)
Is<30mths, functionally & behaviourally disturbed
child guidance clinic
E:n= IG C:n= PPT total n=38
n=6 therapist Ib+/0 Mb+, Mrepr+/0, Mmh+ interaction+ overall IG=PPT
Davis & Spurr, 1998 Guidance and support
HV, manualised From referral (Mean 2.5 yrd) for 2-25 sessions (average 7.8)
Low SES , referred, behav probs and/or parent depression
Health visitrs, GP or self
E: n=55 C: comparison n=38 (routine care)
31% initially (60/87), further drop out 5
Specially trained HV or mental health worker
Mmh+, Mself esteem+ M Stress+ Mrep+, Home environment+ Cb+
Drell 1992 TRANS multimodal therapy : dynamic, behavioural, family approach
female toddler E. aged 2yrs, behaviour out-of-control
referral single case study N/A therapist Ib+ Mb+
Table IV.14 Later started programmes
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Free et al. 1996 accuracy in interpreting C’s emotion: Ms with vs without psychotherapy
1 session of rating photographs
depressed Ms & their Cs, m-c, <Cau
day-care centre, P-groups, newspapers, advertising, clinics
E:n=43 depressed Ms with psychotherapy C1:n=10 depressed Ms without therapy C2:n=31 non-depressed Ms
psychotherapy increases accuracy in interpretation of (especially neg.) emotions in depressed Ms & their Cs
Grantham-McGregor et al. 1991 JS
HV : nutrition with/without stimulation
2 years 1hr wkly
LowSES, growth stunted Is
health clinic E1:n=32 stunted, nutr&stimul E2:n=30 stunted stimulated E3:n= nutrition C1: n=33 / stunted C2:n=32 / non-stunted
para-Hv: ethnic peer
Id+
Green et al. 1981 PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
abusing Ps referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+ Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective dose effects
Hancock 1998 HV based on Iwaniec (1995)
more than 1 year
Amy aged 2.5 yrs, FTT, emotionally abused
referral single case study N/A HV: health visitor
Ib+, Ih+ Mb+
Kaukonen & Tamminen 1998 PD systems behavioural
psychiatric I-family day-ward for all family members
3 weeks daily 9:30am-2pm
at/multiple-risk dysfunctional families
referrals E:n=81 families C: N/A
multi: nurses, PSY, family therapists
26% re-admission, 26% successful, 29% continued treatment at local guidance clinic
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
referral single case study N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
Lieberman et al. 1991 PD HV: MIT 1 year 1.5hrs wkly
lowSES, HIS, immigrants, anxious dyads
paediatric clinic E:n=29 MIT anxious C1:n=23 anxious C2:n=30 secure
n=18 HV: bilingual MSC psychologists or SW
Ib+ Mrepr0, Mb+
Table IV.14 Later started programmes
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Lyons-Ruth et al. 1990
HV: prof vs para-professional visitors
13.3 (9-18) mths 1hr wkly 46.7 visits mthly drop-in hour
lowSES, depressed, inadequate Ms
HES-services E1:n= prof HV+P-group E2:n=10 para HV+drop-in-hour C1:n=10 / high-risk C2:n=35 / community Is/non-depressed Ms
n=9 para-HV: ethnic mothers, prof-HV: MSC-psychologist
Iatt+, Ic+, Mb0 para=prof service
McDonough 1993 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
4 months HV: 3 visits, 6-wkly Playroom: 12 sessions, wkly
Lisa & Sam Jr, aged 4 mths, NOFT
referral 1 single case study
N/A therapist Ih+, Imh+ Mb+, Mpd+ interaction+
Minde & Tidmarsh 1997 PD MIT +/ PT +/ PPT +/ P-groups
<5->10 sessions
teen, Cau, m-c, <marr, Is with disruptive behaviour
C’s hospital E: n=57 C: N/A
n=3 multi: 20 staff Ib+
Muir 1992 WWW
PD object relations
WWW 12 (8-20) sessions 50mins wkly
Jan & son Troy, aged 10.5mths, NOFT
referral single case study N/A therapist Ib+, Ih+, Id+ Mrepr+, Mb+
Muir & Thorlaksdottir 1994 WWW
PD object relations
WWW 6-13 weeks 1hr wkly
referral 4 single case studies
N/A therapist
Osofsky & Dickson 2000 VIP
PD play therapy crisis intervention
10-12 months wkly (-reducing) & booster sessions
Cs with PTSD due to witnessing violence/M’s death, Carl & Chad Bobby
referral E:n=35 2 single case studies
N/A therapist
Powell & Grantham-McGregor 1989
HV 2 years wkly, biwkly, or mthly
lowSES, <Bl, <lowEd, <single
health clinic E1st study:n=152 wkly or mthly HV E2nd study:n=58 wkly HV Cs: n= no HV
8.5% (1st study)
para-HV: ethnic peers 8 wks training
Ic+ dose effects sleeper effect?
Table IV.14 Later started programmes
Study Model Intervention Duration Intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Proulx & Minde 1995 PD group-based PT for fathers & Is
10 weeks 2.5hrs wkly
fathers unable to relate to toddlers
E:n=5 father’s & I’s group C: N/A
PSY, art therapist
Fk+, Fb+
Puura et al. 2000 EEP
EU/WHO HV + need/risk assessment
Prenatal-onwards 1pre- & 1postnatal assessment wkly sessions
n=1000 at-risk & low-risk families in 5 countries
E1:n=50 no-need/low-risk E2:n=50 in-need C1:n=50 no-need C2:n=50 in-need
N/A primary health care professionals
not available yet
Robert-Tissot et al. 1996 PD PPT vs IG 9.3 weeks 6.1 (1-12) sessions
functionally & behaviourally disturbed Is, aged <30mths, mixSES, intact families
child guidance clinic
E:n= PPT C:n= IG total n=75
n=10 refusals, n=37/75
IG: P & speech therapist PPT: 4 PSY
Ib+ Mb+, Mrepr+/0 interaction+ PPT=IG sleeper effects
Scarr & McCartney 1988 MCHP
HV: PE (vs book)
2 years biwkly 46 visits
LowSES E:n=78 HV-PE C:n=39 /
7% refusals n=4 re data
para-HV: ethnic peers
Ic(+) Mb(+) null/ceiling effects
Seifer et al. 1991 Interaction trans-disciplinary model
Ps counselling & video interaction coaching (IC) for Is with developmental disabilities
10 months IC: 6 sessions P-group: wkly
Is with developmental disabilities
multi: e.g. hospitals, practitioners,
E:n=23 IC + Ps counselling group C:n=P-group, no IC but video watching
P, SW Ib+, Id+ Mb+,
Table IV.15 Minimal/very brief programmes lasting for one/few sessions
Study Model Intervention Duration
Intensity Participants Recruitment Condition
n Attrition Provider Outcomes
Belsky 1985, 1986 PIFDP
NBAS active exposure to NBAS, Ms only vs couple
primi, Wh, marr
obstetric practice
E1:n=15 couple NBAS E2:n=15 Ms NBAS C1:n=15 C2:n=15 verbal report of NBAS
n=7/67 dropouts
Pb+ interaction 0
Juffer et al. 1997 ATT HV: MIT + book vs book
3 visits interracially adopted Is
adoption agency E1:n=30 MIT+book E2:n=30 book C:n=30 /
n=17 HV: 3 researchers with MSC
Iatt+, Ib+ Mb+ E2:0 effects
Kaukonen & Tamminen 1998 PD systems behavioural
psychiatric I-family day-ward for all family members
3 weeks daily 9:30am-2pm
at/multiple-risk dysfunctional families
referrals E:n=81 families C: N/A
multi: nurses, PSY, family therapists
26% re-admission, 26% successful, 29% continued treatment at local guidance clinic
Leib et al. 1980 stimulation sensory enrichment programme
Birth – hospital discharge ?
preterm Is, Wh, m-c,
neonatal intensive care unit
E:n=14 stimulation C:n=14 routine care
nurses Id+, Ih0 (weight gain)
Liptak et al. 1983 NBAS NBAS 1 session m-c, Wh, primi, <marr
hospital E: n= NBAS + routine care C1:n= 1 visit by author C2:n= phys. I-examination in front of M total n=75
n=9 refusals n=4/75 dropouts
Mb+ interaction0
Myers 1982 NBAS active P-exposure to NBAS-exam in hospital, Ms vs fathers only
1 45-60mins session
primi, m-c, <Wh, couples
hospital E1:n= Ms NBAS E2:n= Fs NBAS C:n= no NBAS total n=42
n=2 Pk+, Pb+/0, Prepr(+)
Table IV.15 Minimal/very brief programmes lasting for one/few sessions
Study Model Intervention Duration
intensity Participants Recruitment Condition
n Attrition Provider Outcomes
Schanberg & Field 1987 stimulation Tactile kinesthetic stimulation
10 days 45mins daily
premature, LBW neonates
hospital E:n=26 t/k-stimulation C:n= routine care
Ib+, Ih+, Id+ service use+ cost-effective early discharge
Strayhorn & Weidman 1991 P-group training in interaction
0-12.5 hrs training
lowSES, mix-ethn, Cs with behaviour problems
varied, e.g. Head Start
E:n=50 extensive training C:n=48 pamphlet
n=21 research assistant
Ic0, Ib+ Mb+
Taylor & Beauchamp 1988 EC HV: PE birth-1 month 4, 90mins sessions
preg, primi, mix-SES, mix-ethn, mix-Ed
hospital E :n= hosp & home PE C:n= routine care
n=12/42 HV: student nurse
Mrepr+, Mb+, Mk+ interaction+
Wendland-Carro et al. 1999 ATT NBAS
Video & talk re: M-I-interaction vs caregiving skills
1 hr only lowSES, primi, married
maternity ward E:n=17 video + talk re M-I-interaction C:n=19 video + talk re caregiving
n=2 researcher Mb+ interaction+
Widmayer & Field 1981 TRANS NBAS with/ without MABI (adaptation of NBAS for Ms)
birth-4 weeks 5 sessions
lowSES, Bl, teen, preterm
hospital, assessment at home
E1:n= NBAS + MABI E2:n= MABI C:n= questionnaire on I-development total n=30
researcher Id+, Ic+? interaction+
Wingerd Bristor et al 1984 Parent coaching / skills training
birth-3 days (days 1, 2, &7 post-birth)
primi, mix-SES, intact families
private paediatric clinic
E:n=21 P-coaching C1:n=21 routine care C2:n=21 exp. Decliners
n=23 Ib+/0 Mb+/0 interaction+
Wright et al. 1998 PP
HV 1visit or more NOFT, <2yrs health district E:n=95 HV+routine care C:n=109 routine care
complex HV: research nurse, health visitor, dietician
Ih+
Table IV.16 short duration prgrammes lasting up to one year
Study Model Intervention
Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 1998 behaviour vs representations
ATT MIT: behav. vs behav + repres level
3 months 1.5-3hrs 4 visits
Primi, m-c, insecure Ms
records nurses
E1 :n=10 behav. E2 :n=10 beh+repr C:n=10
N/A HV: 2 authors Iatt0 Mb+ (E1&2) insecureM>behav dismissingM>repres
Barth 1991 CPEP EC HV 6 months 11 (5-20) visits
preg, mix-ethn, lowSES, at-risk
HES-services E:n=97 HV C:n=94 routine care
n=122 para-HV: ethnic peer
Ia/n0 null results
Black et al. 1995 EC HV with /without clinic
1 year 1hr wkly 19.2 (0-47) visits
lowSES, <AA, <single, lowEd, NOFT
paediatric primary clinic
C:n=64 HV + clinic C:n=66 clinic
20% not recruited n=14
3 para-HV Ic+, Ib+ Mb+
Booth et al. 1987 HV : MIT vs didactic/info (test of 2-step model)
prenatal-1 year
n=95 preg, Wh, multi-risk
health department
E1:n=44% MIT E2:n=56% didactic/info
nurse Mb+, Mmh+ interaction+ dose effect
Cohen et al. 1999 WWW vs PPT
PD WWW vs PPT 5 months 1 hr wkly 8-18 sessions
Is <30mths with att, b, sleep, eat problems
C’s mental health centre
E :n=34 WWW C:n=33 PPT
n=6 4 I-mental health therapists
Iatt+, Imh+, Ic+ Mb+/0, Mmh+, Mrepr+ WWW>PPT
Cramer 1998 Interactional Guidance (IG) vs Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PPT)
PD, IG IG vs PPT 6 sessions (max. 10 sessions)
Is<30mths, functionally & behaviourally Disturbed
child guidance clinic
E:n= IG C:n= PPT total n=38
n=6 therapist Ib+/0 Mb+, Mrepr+/0, Mmh+ interaction+ overall IG=PPT
Davis & Spurr, 1998 Guidance and support
HV, manualised From referral (Mean 2.5 yrd) for 2-25 sessions (average 7.8)
Low SES , referred, behav probs and/or parent depression
Health visitrs, GP or self
E: n=55 C: comparison n=38 (routine care)
31% initially (60/87), further drop out 5
Specially trained HV or mental health worker
Mmh+, Mself esteem+ M Stress+ Mrep+, Home environment+ Cb+
Davis & Rushton 1991 PAS
other HV : support wkly 7.8 (2-25) sessions
lowSES, mult-risk, Cs with multi-problems
HES-services E:n=55 HV-support C:n=38 /
36.8% HV: health visitor, clin. medical officer
Ib+ Mb+, Mmh+, Mrepr+/0
Egeland & Erickson 1990 STEEP
ATT HV: PPT + P-group
prenatal-1 year biwkly
at-risk, primi, lowSES, lowEd
E:n=74 C:n=80
Iatt0 Mmh+, Mb+, Mrepr+
Table IV.16 short duration prgrammes lasting up to one year
Study Model Intervention
Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Gray et al. 1977 HV vs routine care
birth-2 years wkly
preg, at-risk Ms hospital E:n=50 high-risk HV C1:n=50 high-risk routine care C2:n=50 low-risk routine care
N/A HV: public health nurse, & lay health visitor
Ih+, Ia/n0, Id0 Mb0 service use 0 (immunisations)
Green et al. 1981 PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
abusing Ps referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+ Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective dose effects
Johnson et al. 1993 Community MP
support HV birth-1 year low SES, primi health authority E:n=127 HV + routine care E:n=105 routine care
11% para-HV: 30 ethnic peers 4 wks training
Ia/n0 Mb+, Mmh+ service use+ (immunisation)
Lieberman et al. 1991 PD HV: MIT 1 year 1.5hrs wkly
lowSES, HIS, immigrants, anxious dyads
paediatric clinic E:n=29 MIT anxious C1:n=23 anxious C2:n=30 secure
n=18 HV: bilingual MSC psycholgists or SW
Ib+ Mrepr0, Mb+
Marcenko & Spence, 1994 support HV prenatally-1year wkly-reducing
preg, AA, lowSES, at-risk for out-of-home placement
obstetric clinic E:n=110 HV+routine care C:n=77 routine care
n=58 para-HV: ethnic peer
Mss+, Mmh+, Mb0 service use+ out-of-home placement0
McDonald Culp et al. 1998 teen vs adult
education HV 6 months 1hr wkly
preg, low SES, teen&adult, <Cau,
health department
E:n=61 C: N/A
para-HV: 30hrs training
Mk+, Mb+ service use+ teen catch up on Mk
McDonough 1993 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
4 months HV: 3 visits, 6-wkly playroom: 12 sessions, wkly
Lisa & Sam Jr, aged 4 mths, NOFT
referral 1 single case study
N/A therapist Ih+, Imh+ Mb+, Mpd+ interaction+
McDonough 1995 IG Interaction Guidance (IG)
1 hr wkly multi-problem, resistant families: 2 FTT-cases: 1 resistant, 1 cogn. limited family
referral 2 single case studies
N/A therapist Ih+ Pb+, Pk+ interaction +
Table IV.16 short duration prgrammes lasting up to one year
Study Model Intervention
Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Muir & Thorlaksdottir 1994 WWW
PD object relations
WWW 6-13 weeks 1hr wkly
referral 4 single case studies
N/A therapist
Nye et al. 1995 MRCOP
RCT HV: PT&MG of Ms vs both Ps
10 months wkly-biwkly 28 sessions
Cau, alcoholism court records re drunk driving
E1:n=20 PT Ms E2:n=22 PT both Ps C:n=23 /
n=10 (E2) HV: MSc P or SW
Ib+
Osofsky & Dickson 2000 VIP PD play therapy crisis intervention
10-12 months wkly (-reducing) & booster sessions
Cs with PTSD due to witnessing violence/M’s death, Carl & Chad Bobby
referral E:n=35 2 single case studies
N/A therapist
Parr 1997 PIPPIN
ATT other
HV + PT-group prenatal-18wks 1hr wkly
low-risk, >Wh mixSES, primi,
E:n=98 HV+group C:n=114 waiting list
n=32 PI-facilitators Mmh+, Mrepr+, Mb+, Matt+ Fb+, Fmh+, Frepr+
Puura et al. 2000 EEP
EU/WHO HV + need/risk assessment
prenatal-onwards 1pre- & 1postnatal assessment wkly sessions
n=1000 at-risk & low-risk families in 5 countries
E1:n=50 no-need/low-risk E2:n=50 in-need C1:n=50 no-need C2:n=50 in-need
N/A HV: primary health care professionals
not available yet
Rauh et al. 1988 MITP TRANS intensive NBAS in hospital & home
3 months 11 1hr sessions (hospital: 7, home: 4 sessions)
Ps of LBW Is intensive care unit
E1:n=25 LBW NBAS C1:n=29 LBW C1:n=28 normal BW
n=15 intensive care nurse
Ic+ Mrepr+
Robert-Tissot et al. 1996 PD PPT vs IG 9.3 weeks 6.1 (1-12) sessions
functionally & behaviourally disturbed Is, aged <30mths, mixSES, intact families
child guidance clinic
E:n= PPT C:n= IG total n=75
n=10 refusals, n=37/75
IG: P & speech therapist PPT: 4 PSY
Ib+ Mb+, Mrepr+/0 interaction+ PPT=IG sleeper effects
Table IV.16 short duration prgrammes lasting up to one year
Study Model Intervention
Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Ross 1984 HV : PE birth-1 year biwkly-monthly
premature, lowSES, mix-ethn
medical centre E:n=40 HV-PE premature C:n=40 matched premature
n=5 HV: nurse, paediatric occ. therapist
Ic+, Imh+, Id0 Mb+, Mrepr0
Seifer et al. 1991 Interaction trans-disciplinary model
Ps counselling & video interaction coaching (IC) for Is with developmental disabilities
10 months IC: 6 sessions P-group: wkly
Is with developmental disabilities
multi: e.g. hospitals, practitioners,
E:n=23 IC + Ps counselling group C:n=P-group, no IC but video watching
P, SW Ib+, Id+ Mb+,
Siegel et al. 1980 ATT? HV vs early extended contact
birth onwards hospital: 5hrs daily 9 home visits
lowSES with normal vs complicated labour /pregnancy
hospital E1:n=47 & 60 HV & ext. contact E2:n=50 extended contact E3:n=53 HV C:n=52 & 59 routine care
n=204/525 para-HV 200hrs training
Ia/n0 Mb(+) ext. contact only service use0 HV:null results
Spencer et al. 1989 SMFWP
support HV: support/no PE
prenatal-1 year
preg, at-risk, non-Asian, n=1288
2 maternity units
E:n= support C:n= routine care
n=52 para-HV with personality/life experiences
Ih0 null results
van den Boom 1994 ATT HV: behavioural MIT
3months 2hrs 3wkly
irritable Is, Cau, lowSES, primi
hospital midwives
E1:n=25 MIT + pre-assessment E2:n=25 MIT C1:n=25 pre-treatment assessment C2:n=25
100/588 with complete data
HV: author Ib+, Ic+, Iatt+ Mb+ interaction+
Table IV.17 Long duration programmes lasting for more than one year
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
ABECEDARIAN Ramey & Campbell 1984 Horacek et al 1987
HV, nutrition & educational day care centre
HV: 3 years, 15 sessions/yr Centre: 5 years 6-8hrs daily
lowSES, Bl, single, cog. disadvantaged
hospital & social services
E1:n=41/25 pre-school & school E2:n=24 pre-school E3:n=21 school C:n=44/90 low-risk
20.7% overall teachers Ic+ Cs with more services benefit more (dose effects)
Baker et al. 1999 HIPPY HV + preschool + P-groups vs preschool
2 years HV: 30-60mins biwkly P-group: biwkly
<AA, limited Ed Ps & preschoolers
3 sites E:n=37-63 HV + preschool + P-group C:n=32-66 preschool
9-28% for sites
para-HV varied for cohorts/sites Ic+/-
Black et al. 1994 SPICE
EC HV : MIT + clinic vs clinic
Prenatal-18mths 1hr biwkly HV :12 (0-32) Clinic:25 (0-75) mthly-reducing
lowSES, drug abusing, single, lowEd, <AA
prenatal clinic E:n=31 HV+clinic C:n=29 clinic
10% refuse n=27
2 community nurses
Ic(+)/0 Mb+ service use(+)
Brayden et al 1993 HV + indiv. C + P-groups
Prenatal-2 years HV: mthly Groups: 44 biwkly, 5 prenatal
preg, lowSES, at-risk hospital E:n=141 high-risk C1:n=122 high-risk routine care C2:n=264 low-risk routine care
10-20% para-HV multi-team
Ia/n0/- (!) service use+ null results
Carpenter et al. 1983 SIP
HV: high vs low-risk
Birth-7 years Biwkly-mthly
general population, high-risk Is
records E: HV high-risk C: low-risk
n=1/2000 HV: research health visitor
I-mortality+
Cordeiro 1997 PD PPT 6-24 months 12-12? Sessions or more
Is<3 years with attachment,functional, behavioural problems
GPs, paediatricians
E:n=114 C: N/A
n=26 multi: PSY, clin. P, nurse
15.1%: not improved 56.5%: improved 28.3%: greatly improved Cs <24mths benefit more
Table IV.17 Long duration programmes lasting for more than one year
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Daro & Harding 1999 HFA
HV prenatal-3/5 years wkly or less
at-risk, mix-ethn, mix-SES newborns
E: high-risk C: low-risk
varied, no pattern
HV: professionals with degree
Ih+/0, Ia/n+/0, Id0 Mpd+/0, Mss0 interaction+ service use+/0
Duggan et al. 1999 HSP HV 3-5 years 1-4 visits mthly
lowSES, mix-ethn, at-risk Is/Cs
statewide agency
E:n=373 HV C1:n=270 / C2:n=41 / testing ctrl
51% & 12% para-HV Id+/0, Ia/n0 Mb+/0, Mpd0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+/0 service use+/0
Grantham-McGregor et al. 1991 JS
HV : nutrition with/without stimulation
2 years 1hr weekly
LowSES, growth stunted Is
health clinic E1 :n=32 stunted, nutr&stimul E2 :n=30 stunted stimulated E3 :n= nutrition C1 : n=33 / stunted C2 :n=32 / Non-stunted
para-HV: ethnic peer
Id+
Hancock 1998 HV based on Iwaniec (1995)
more than 1 year
Amy aged 2.5 yrs, FTT, emotionally abused
Referral single case study
N/A HV: health visitor Ib+, Ih+ Mb+
Hardy and Streett 1989 HV: PE + telephone line
birth-2 years 40-60mins wkly-reducing
lowSES, <Bl, <primi, <single
E:n=131 HV C:n=132 routine care
n=27 para-HV: ethnic peer
Ih+, Ia/n+ service use+
Heinicke et al. 1999 UCLA
ATT other
HV + Migroup
prenatal-2/4 years wkly-reducing group: 17 (0-43)
preg, primi, lowSES, at-risk, ethn-mix
paediatric clinic E:n=31 HV+MIgroup C:n=33 follow-up
n=6/70 HV: mental health professionals
Ib+, Iatt+, Ic0 Mb+, Mrepr+, Mmh0
Huxley & Warner 1993 CIP
HV: MIT vs routine care
prenatal-3yrs at-risk, parenting problems
multi E:n=20 MIT+routine care C:n=20 routine care
n=20 public health nurse
Ia/n+, Ih+ Mb+, Mrepr+
Table IV.17 Long duration programmes lasting for more than one year
Study Model Intervention Duration
intensity Participants Recruitment Condition
n Attrition Provider Outcomes
Kitzman et al. 1997 Prenatal/Early IP
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: 1 vs 2 years
prenatal-2 yrs 7(0-18) prenatal 26 (0-71)postnatal
AA, preg, primi, lowSES, single
obstetric care system
E1:n=228 2yrs HV +screen +transp E2:n=230 1yr HV +screen +transp C1:n=515 screen+transp C2:n=166 transport
4% at 2yrs nurses Ih+/0,Ic0, Ib0 Mb+/, Mh+, Mrepr+/0, Mpd0 pregnancies+ service use0 (i.e. immunisations)
Kunkel 1981
SLT others
individual residential therapy
18 months Cs: daily families: wkly
abused children aged 4-12yrs
referrals E:n=24 C: N/A
N/A therapists Ca/n+, Cmh+ 83% successful
Larson (1980) Pre- vs postnatal visits
HV: pre- vs postnatal visits
prenatal-15 months 10-11 visits 1 prenatal visit
preg, Engl/French Canadian, working class
hospital E1:n=pre- & post-natal visits E2:n=post-natal visits C:n=
n=25 HV with degee in psychology
Ih+ Mb+ interaction+ postnatal visits not enough
Leifer & Smith 1990 EC PD
MIT & PT 13 mths twice wkly 84 sessions
Ella & Tim aged 4 mths, FTT, M development delayed, depressed
referral single case study
N/A therapist Ic0, Iatt+, Ib+ Mb=+/0, Mmh+/0, Mss0 interaction+ pregnancies-
Luster et al. 1996 TIES support HV: support/no PE
(birth?)-5 years wkly
lowSES, primi, teen E:n=72 HV C:n=70 less intensive phone line service
6 para-HV Id0, Ic0 null results
Lyons-Ruth et al. 1990
HV: prof vs para-professional visitors
13.3 (9-18) mths 1hr wkly 46.7 visits mthly drop-in hour
lowSES, depressed, inadequate Ms
HES-services E1:n= prof HV+P-group E2:n=10 para HV+drop-in-hour C1:n=10 / high-risk C2:n=35 / community Is/non-depressed Ms
n=9 para-HV: ethnic mothers, prof-HV: MSC-psychologist
Iatt+, Ic+, Mb0 para=prof service
Table IV.17 Long duration programmes lasting for more than one year
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
prenatal-2 yrs 1hr15mins wkly-reducing 8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
antenatal clinic E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% HV: nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Powell & Grantham-McGregor 1989
HV 2 years wkly, biwkly, or mthly
lowSES, <Bl, <lowEd, <single
health clinic E1st study:n=152 wkly or mthly HV E2nd study:n=58 wkly HV Cs: n= no HV
8.5% (1st study)
para-HV: ethnic peers 8 wks training
Ic+ dose effects sleeper effect?
Scarr & McCartney 1988 MCHP
HV: PE (vs book)
2 years biwkly 46 visits
lowSES E:n=78 HV-PE C:n=39 /
7% refusals n=4 re data
para-HV: ethnic peers
Ic(+) Mb(+) null/ceiling effects
St.Pierre and Layzer 1999 CCDP HV + PE birth-5 years HV: 30-90mins wkly/biwkly PE: 30mins biwly
lowSES, mix-ethn, disadvantaged
21-24 sites E: n=2213 C:n=2217
64% all sites at 5 yrs
para-HV null results in all domains
Teerikangas et al. 1998 other HV: family counselling
5 years 50 sessions
mixed-risk maternity clinic E:n=54 HV counselling C:n=46
high HV: psychiatric nurses
Imh+
Table IV.17 Long duration programmes lasting for more than one year
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Wagner & Clayton 1999 PAT education HV + case management + PE
prenatal-2 years
SV-PAT: lowSES, <Latina Teen-PAT: lowSES, teens
SV-PAT E:n=298 HV C:n=199 Teen-PAT: E1:n=175 HV + PAT + case management E2:n=174 case management E3:n=177 PAT C:n=178
SV-PAT: 43% from programme 27% from evaluation
para-HV Id0, Ih0, Mk(+), Mb(+), Mrepr (+) dose effects
Ware & Osofsky 1987 MIP HV + drop-in-centre + 24hr-telephone line
birth-30 months HV: wkly-reducing centre: wkly
mix-ethn teens E: n=54 C1:n=24 routine care C2:n=28 non-engagers
30-40% 2/4 HVs
para-HV Ia0, Ic+/0 Mb+ interaction+/0 sleeper effects overall null results
Wasik et al. 1990 CARE
HV: PE + day centre vs home PE
birth-6 years wkly-reducing
at-risk, Bl, single E1:n=14 HV-PE + day care centre E2:n=23 HV-PE C:n= /
9% HV: teachers, SW, nurses
Ic+ Mb0
Table IV.18 Dose effects
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
ABECEDARIAN Ramey & Campbell 1984 Horacek et al 1987
HV, nutrition & educational day care centre
HV: 3 years, 15 sessions/yr Centre: 5 years 6-8hrs daily
Low SES, Bl, single, cog. disadvantaged
hospital & social services
E1:n=41/25 pre-school & school E2:n=24 pre-school E3:n=21 school C:n=44/90 low-risk
20.7% overall teachers Ic+ Cs with more services benefit more (dose effects)
Booth et al. 1987 HV : MIT vs didactic/info (test of 2-step model)
Prenatal-1 year n=95 preg, Wh, multi-risk
health department E1:n=44% MIT E2:n=56% didactic/info
nurse Mb+, Mmh+ interaction+ dose effect
Field et al. 1982 HV-based PT in I-stimulation vs nursery-based paid PT-training
Birth-6 months HV: biwkly Nursery: 4hrs daily
Low SES, Bl, teen E1:n=40 HV PT E2:n=40 nursery PT (teacher aide) C:n=40
N/A HV: psychology student with exp-teens as teacher aides
Ih+, Id+, Imh+, Ic+ Mpd+ pregnancies+ dose effects
Green et al. 1981 PD HV, PPT, C, P-groups
5-36 months 6 sessions or more
Abusing Ps referrals E: n=79 multi-intervention C: N/A
N/A HV: multi-disciplinary
Ia/n+ Mrepr+, Mb+ HV/combined approach effective, Cs with more services benefit more dose effects
IHDP 1990 EC Other
RCT HV + centre + MIgroup
Birth-3 years Wkly-reducing
LBW, preterm, ethn-mix
8 hospitals E1:n=377 HV+centre+group E2:n=330 El-low compliers C:n=512/608 follow-up
7% of recruited
HV: prof./ graduates
Ic+, Ih-/0(NOFT), Ib0, compliers<Ic+, Ib+ Mb+(HOME)
Nye et al. 1995 MRCOP
RCT HV: PT&MG of Ms vs both Ps
10 months wkly-biwkly 28 sessions
Cau, alcoholism court records re drunk driving
E1:n=20 PT Ms E2:n=22 PT both Ps C:n=23 /
n=10 (E2) HV: MSc P or SW
Ib+
Table IV.18 Dose effects
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Powell & Grantham-McGregor 1989
HV 2 years wkly, biwkly, or mthly
Low SES, <Bl, <lowEd, <single
health clinic E1st study:n=152 wkly or mthly HV E2nd study:n=58 wkly HV Cs: n= no HV
8.5% (1st study) para-HV: ethnic peers 8 wks training
Ic+ dose effects sleeper effect?
Wagner & Clayton 1999 PAT
Education HV + case management + PE
prenatal-2 years SV-PAT: lowSES, <Latina Teen-PAT: lowSES, teens
SV-PAT E:n=298 HV C:n=199 Teen-PAT: E1:n=175 HV + PAT + case management E2:n=174 case management E3:n=177 PAT C:n=178
SV-PAT: 43% from programme 27% from evaluation
para-HV Id0, Ih0, Mk(+), Mb(+), Mrepr (+) dose effects Latino benefit more Cs with more services benefit more (dose effects)
Ware & Osofsky 1987 MIP
HV + drop-in-centre + 24hr-telephone line
birth-30 months HV: wkly-reducing centre: wkly
mix-ethn teens E: n=54 C1:n=24 routine care C2:n=28 non-engagers
30-40% 2/4 HVs
para-HV Ia0, Ic+/0 Mb+ interaction+/0 sleeper effects overall null results engagers benefit more (dose effect?)
Table IV.19 Sleeper effects
Study Model Intervention Duration
intensity Participants Recruitment Condition
n Attrition Provider Outcomes
ABECEDARIAN Ramey & Campbell 1984 Horacek et al 1987
HV, nutrition & educational day care centre
HV: 3 years, 15 sessions/yr centre: 5 years 6-8hrs daily
LowSES, Bl, single, cog. Disadvantaged
hospital & social services
E1:n=41/25 pre-school & school E2:n=24 pre-school E3:n=21 school C:n=44/90 low-risk
20.7% overall teachers Ic+ Cs with more services benefit more (dose effects)
Field et al. 1982 HV-based PT in I-stimulation vs nursery-based paid PT-training
birth-6 months HV: biwkly nursery: 4hrs daily
LowSES, Bl, teen E1:n=40 HV PT E2:n=40 nursery PT (teacher aide) C:n=40
N/A HV: psychology student with exp-teens as teacher aides
Ih+, Id+, Imh+, Ic+ Mpd+ pregnancies+ dose effects sleeper effects
Olds et al. 1986
EC, ATT other
RCT HV: pre+postbirth vs prebirth
prenatal-2 yrs 1hr15mins wkly-reducing 8-9 prenatal 23 postnatal
Wh, preg, primi, teen, lowSES, >single
antenatal clinic E1:n=116 HV pre+post birth + screen + transp E2:n=100 HV pre- birth + screen + transp C1:n=90 screen + transp C2:n=94 screening
19-21% nurses Ih+, Ia/n+ Mb+, Mh+, Mpd+, Mss+ pregnancies+ aid+
Powell & Grantham-McGregor 1989
HV 2 years wkly, biwkly, or mthly
LowSES, <Bl, <lowEd, <single
health clinic E1st study:n=152 wkly or mthly HV E2nd study:n=58 wkly HV Cs: n= no HV
8.5% (1st study) para-HV: ethnic peers 8 wks training
Ic+ dose effects sleeper effect?
Puckering et al. 1994 MP
empowerment Mellow Parenting group intervention (MP)
4 months wkly
hard-to-reach Ms with severe parenting problems
varied E:n=22 MP n=7/29 MP-therapists Ia/n+ Mb+ interaction+
Table IV.19 Sleeper effects
Study Model Intervention Duration intensity
Participants Recruitment Condition n
Attrition Provider Outcomes
Puckering et al. 1996 MP
empowerment Mellow Parenting group intervention (MP)
4 months wkly
Linda & Andrew aged 23mths, M-I-interaction & eating problems
single case study: MP
N/A MP-therapists Ib+ Mb+, Mmh+/0, Mrepr+, Mpd+
Rauh et al. 1988 MITP TRANS intensive NBAS in hospital & home
3 months 11 1hr sessions (hospital: 7, home: 4 sessions)
Ps of LBW Is intensive care unit
E1:n=25 LBW NBAS C1:n=29 LBW C1:n=28 normal BW
n=15 intensive care nurse
Ic+ Mrepr+
Robert-Tissot et al. 1996 PD PPT vs IG 9.3 weeks 6.1 (1-12) sessions
Functionally & behaviourally disturbed Is, aged <30mths, mixSES, intact families
child guidance clinic
E:n= PPT C:n= IG total n=75
n=10 refusals, n=37/75
IG: P & speech therapist PPT: 4 PSY
Ib+ Mb+, Mrepr+/0 interaction+ PPT=IG sleeper effects
Strayhorn & Weidman 1991
P-group training in interaction
0-12.5 hrs training
LowSES, mix-ethn, Cs with behaviour problems
varied, e.g. Head Start
E:n=50 extensive training C:n=48 pamphlet
n=21 research assistant Ic0, Ib+ Mb+
van den Boom 1994 ATT HV: behavioural MIT
3months 2hrs 3wkly
Irritable Is, Cau, lowSES, primi
hospital midwives
E1:n=25 MIT + pre-assessment E2:n=25 MIT C1:n=25 pre-treatment assessment C2:n=25
100/588 with complete data
HV: author Ib+, Ic+, Iatt+ Mb+ interaction+
Ware & Osofsky 1987 MIP HV + drop-in-centre + 24hr-telephone line
birth-30 months HV: wkly-reducing centre: wkly
mix-ethn teens E: n=54 C1:n=24 routine care C2:n=28 non-engagers
30-40% 2/4 HVs
para-HV Ia0, Ic+/0 Mb+ interaction+/0 sleeper effects overall null results
References
Altepeter, T. S. & Walker, C. E. (1992). Prevention of physical Abuse of Children Through Parent Training. In D. J.Willis, E. W. Holden, & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), Prevention of Child Maltreatment: Developmental and Ecological Perspectives (pp. 226-248). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Anisfield, E., Casper, V., Nozyce, M. & Cunningham, N. (1990). Does infant carrying promote attachment? An experimental study of the effects of increased physical contact on the development of attachment. Child Development, 61, 1617-1627
Baker, A. J. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1999). The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY). The Future of Children, 9, 116-133.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1998). Interventions with video-feedback and attachment discussions: Does type of maternal insecurity make a difference. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19, 202-219.
Barnard, K., Morisset, C. E., & Spieker, S. (1993). Preventive interventions: enhancing parent-infant relationships. In C.H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of Infant Mental Health (pp. 386-401). London: The Guildford Press
Barnett W.S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5.
Barrera, M., Doucet, D., & Kitching, K. (1990). Early home intervention and socio-emotional development of preterm infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11, 142-157.
Barth, R. (1991). An experimental evaluation of in-home child abuse prevention services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 363-375.
Behrman, R. E. (ed.) (1993). The future of our children: Home visiting. Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
Belsky, J. (1985). Experimenting with the family in the newborn period. Child Development, 56, 407-414.
Belsky, J. A. (1986). A tale of two variances: between and within. Child Development, 57, 1301-1305.
Benasich, A. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Clewell, B. C. (1992) How do mothers benefit from early intervention programs? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 311-362.
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, 99, 440-448.
Black, M. M., Dubowitz, H., Hutcheson, J., Berenson-Howard, J., & Starr, R. H. (1995). A randomized trial of home intervention for children with failure to thrive. Pediatrics, 95, 807-814.
Black, M. M. & Krishnakumar, A. (1998). Children in low-income, urban settings: interventions to promote mental health and well-being. American Psychologist, 53, 635-646.
Booth, C. L., Barnard, K. E., Mitchell, S. K., & Spieker, S. J. (1987). Successful intervention with multi-problem mothers: effects on the mother-infant relationship. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8, 288-306.
Brayden, R. M., Altemeier, W. A., Dietrich, M. S., Tucker, D. D., Christensen, M. J., McLaughlin, F. J., & Sherrod, K. B. (1993). A prospective study of secondary prevention of child maltreatment. The Journal of Pediatrics, 122, 511-516.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Is early intervention effective? US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Child Development publication No. (OHD) 74-24. Government Printing Office.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryant , D. M. & Ramey, C. T. (1987). An analysis of the effectiveness of early intervention programs for environmentally at-risk children. In M.J. Guralnick & F. C. Bennett (Eds.), The effectiveness of early intervention for at-risk and handicapped children (pp. 33-78). New York: Academic Press.
Bush, D. W. & White, K. R. (1983). The efficacy of early intervention: What can be learned from previous reviews of the literature? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association. In Snowbird, UT.
Carpenter, R.G., Gardner, A., Jepson, M., Taylor, E. M., Salvin, A., Sunderland, R., Emery, J. L., Pursall, E. & Roe, J. (1983). Prevention of unexpected infant death. Evaluation of the first seven years of the Sheffield Intervention Programme. The Lancet, 1(8327):723-727.
Carter, S. L., Osofsky, J. D., & Hann, D. M. (1991). Speaking for the Baby: a therapeutic intervention with adolescent mothers and their infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 12, 291-301.
Casto, G. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1986). The efficacy of early intervention programs: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 52 (5), 417-424. US: Council for Exceptional Children.
Casto, G. & White, K. (1985). The efficacy of early intervention programs with environmentally at-risk infants. In M. Frank (Ed.), Infant intervention programs: Truths and untruths (pp. 37-50). Binghampton, NY: Harworth Press.
Casto, G., White, K., & Taylor, C. (1983). Final Report 1982-83 work scope. Logan, UT: Early Intervention Research Institute, Utah State University.
Clewell, B., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Benasich, A. A. (1989). Evaluating child-related outcomes of teenage parenting programs. Family Relations, 38, 201-209.
Cohen, N. J., Muir, E., Parker, C. J., Brown, M., Lojkasek, M., Muir, R. & Barwick, M. (1999). Watch, wait, and wonder: Testing the effectiveness of a new approach to mother-infant psychotherapy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 204 (4), 429-451.
Coie, J. D., Watt, N. W., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure, M. B., & Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention. A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. American Psychologist, 48, 1013-1022.
Collaborative Group on Preterm Birth Promotion (CGPBP) (1993). Multicenter randomized, controlled trial of a preterm birth prevention program. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 169, 352-366.
Combs-Orme, T., Reis, J., & Ward, L.D. (1985). Effectiveness of Home Visits by Public Health Nurses in Maternal and Child Health: an Empirical Review. Public Health Reports, 100, 490-499.
Cordeiro, M. (1997). Treating infants and mothers in psychic distress: a mental health program for infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 18 (2), 145-157.
Cox, A. D. (1997). Preventing child abuse: a review of community-based projects I: intervention on processes and outcome of reviews. Child Abuse Review, 6, 243-256.
Cox, A. D. (1998). Preventing child abuse: a review of community-based projects II: issues arising from reviews and future directions. Child Abuse Review, 7, 30-43.
Cramer, B. (1998). Mother-infant psychotherapies: a widening scope in technique. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19, 151-167.
Daro, D. A. & Harding, K. A. (1999). Healthy Families America: using research to enhance practice. The Future of Children, 9, 152-176.
Daro, D. & McCurdy, K. (1994). Preventing child abuse and neglect: programmatic interventions. Child Welfare, LXXIII, 405-430.
Davis, H. & Rushton, R. (1991). Counselling and supporting parents of children with developmental delay: A research evaluation. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 35, 89-112.
Davis, H. & Spurr, P. (1998) Parent counselling: An evaluation of a community child mental health service. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 39, 365-376.
Dietrich, A. J. & Marton, K.I. (1982). Does continuous care from a physician make a difference? Journal of Family Practice, 15 (5), 929-937.
Drell, M. (1992). A multimodal treatment strategy for behavior problems in toddlers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 13, 231-244.
Duggan, A. K., McFarlane, E. C., Windham, A. M., Rohde, C. A., Salkever, D. S., Fuddy, L., Rosenberg, L. A., Buchbinder, S. B. & Sia, C. C. J. (1999). Evaluation of Hawaii’s Healthy Start Program. The Future of Children. Home Visiting: Recent Program Evaluations, 9 (1), 66-90.
Durlak, J. A. & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary Prevention Mental Health Programs for Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analytic Review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115-152.
Egeland, B. & Erickson, M. F. (1990). Rising above the past: Strategies for helping new mothers to break the cycle of abuse and neglect. Zero To Three, XI, 29-35.
Farran, D. C. (1990). Effects of intervention with disadvantaged and disabled children: A decade review. In S. J. Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 501-539). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Field, T., Widmayer, S., Greenberg, R. & Stoller, S. (1982). Effects of parent training on teenage mothers and their infants. Pediatrics, 69, 6, 703-707.
Field, T. M., Widmayer, S. M., Stringer, S., & Ignatoff, E. (1980). Teenage, lower-class, black mothers and their preterm infants: an intervention and developmental follow-up. Child Development, 51, 426-436.
Fink, A. & McCloskey, L. (1990). Moving child abuse and neglect prevention programs forward: improving program evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 187-206.
Finkelhor, D. & Strapko, N. (1992). Sexual Abuse Prevention Education: A Review of Evaluation Studies. In D. J. Willis, E. W. Holden, & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), Prevention of Child Maltreatment: Developmental and Ecological Perspectives (pp. 150-167). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Fonagy, P. (1998). Prevention, the appropriate target of infant psychotherapy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19, 124-150.
Free, K., Alechina, I. & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1996). Affective language between depressed mothers and their children: The potential impact of Psychotherapy. Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 783-790.
Fuerst, J. S. (1992, April). Why Head Start is not enough. Newsweek.
Fuerst, J. S. & Fuerst, D. (1991). Chicago experience with early childhood program: The special case of the Child Parent Center Programs. Unpublished manuscript. Loyola University, Chicago.
Garland, C., Swanson, J., Stone, N. W., & Woodruff, G. (1981). Early intervention for children with special needs and their families: Findings and recommendations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 207 278 ed.) Seattle, WA: Washington University.
Gomby, D. S., Larner, M. B., Stevenson, C. S., Lewit, E. M., & Behrman, R. E. (1995). Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs: analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 5.
Gomby, D. S., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999). Home visiting: recent program evaluations - analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 9, 4-26.
Goodson, B. D. & Hess, R. D. (1975). Parents as teachers of young children: An evaluative review of some contemporary concepts and programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Department of Psychology.
Gough, D. (1994). The literature on prevention. Child Abuse Review, 3, 317-322.
Grantham-McGregor, S. M., Powell, C. A., Walker, S. P., & Himes, J. H. (1991). Nutritional supplementation, psychosocial stimulation, and mental development of stunted children: the Jamaican Study. Lancet, 338, 1-5.
Gray, J. D., Cutler, C. A., Dean, J. G., & Kempe, C. H. (1977). Prediction and prevention of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1, 45-58.
Gray, S. W. & Wandersman, L. P. (1980). The methodology of home-based intervention studies: Problems and promising strategies. Child Development 51 (4), 993-1009.
Green, A. H., Power, E., Stenebrook, B., & Gaines, R. (1981). Factors associated with successful and unsuccessful intervention with child abuse families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 5, 45-52.
Halpern, R. (1984). Lack of effects for home-based early intervention? Some possible explanations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 33-42.
Hancock, P. (1998). Emotional abuse treatment and prevention, a specialist health visitor’s intervention. Child Abuse Review, 7, 58-62.
Hardy, J. B. & Streett, R. (1989). Family support and parenting education in the home: an effective extension of clinic-based preventive health care services for poor children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 115, 927-931.
Haskins, R. (1989). Beyond metaphor: efficacy of early childhood education. American Psychologist, 44, 274-282.
Heinicke, C. M. (1991). Early family intervention: Focussing on the mother’s adaptation-competence and quality of the partnership. In D. G. Unger & D. R. Powell (Eds.). Families as nurturing systems: Support across the life span, 127-142. New York: Haworth.
Heinicke, C. M. (1995). Determinants of the transition to parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.). Handbook of Parenting, 3, 277-303. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Heinicke, C. M., Beckwith, L., & Thompson, A. (1988). Early intervention in the family system: a framework and review. Infant Mental Health Journal, 9, 111-141.
Heinicke, C. M., Fineman, N. R., Ruth, G., Recchia, S. L., Guthrie, D., & Rodning, C. (1999). Relationship-based intervention with at risk mothers: outcome in the first year of life. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 349-374.
Heinicke, C. M. & Ponce, V. A. (1999). Relation-based early family intervention. In D. Cichetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.). Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology. Vol X: Developmental approaches to prevention and intervention, 153-193. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Helfer, R. E. (1982). A review of the literature on the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 6, 251-261.
Helfer, R. E. (1987). The perinatal period, a window of opportunity for enhancing parent-infant communication: an approach to prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11, 565-579.
Herbert, M., Sluckin, W., & Sluckin, A. (1982). Mother-to-infant 'bonding'. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23, 205-211.
Hewett, K. D. (1977). Partners with parents: The Home Start experience with preschoolers and their families. (Rep. No. DHEW Publication No. DHEW OHDS 78-31106). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Hodnett, ED. & Roberts, I. (1999). Home-based social support for socially disadvantaged mothers (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library [On-line].
Holden, E. W., Willis, D. J., & Corcoran, M. M. (1992). Preventing Child Maltreatment During the Prenatal/Perinatal Period. In D. J.Willis, E. W. Holden, & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), Prevention of Child Maltreatment: Developmental and Ecological Perspectives (pp. 17-46). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Horacek, H. J., Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Hoffmann, K. P. & Fletcher, R. H. (1987). Predicting school failure and assessing early intervention with high-risk children. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 5, 758-763.
Huxley, P & Warner, R. (1993). Primary prevention of parenting dysfunction in high-risk cases. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63 (4), 582-588.
IHDP (1990). Infant Health and Development Program: Enhancing the outcomes of low-birth-weight, premature infants. A multisite, randomized trial. JAMA, 263, 3035-3042.
Iwaniec, D. (1995). The emotionally abused and neglected child. Identification, assessment, and intervention. Chichester: Wiley.
Johnson, Z., Howell, F., & Molloy, B. (1993). Community mothers' programme: randomized controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting. BMJ, 306, 1449-1452.
Juffer, F., Hoksbergen, R. A. C., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & Kohnstamm, G. A. (1997). Early intervention in adoptive families: supporting maternal sensitive responsiveness, infant-mother attachment and infant competence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 1029-1050.
Karweit, N. L. (1994). Can preschool alone prevent early learning failure? In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing Early School Failure: Research, Policy, and Practice. (pp. 58-77). London: Allyn and Bacon.
Karweit, N. L. & Wasik, B. A. (1994). Extra-Year Kindergarten Programs and Transitional First Grades. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing Early School Failure: Research, Policy, and Practice. (pp. 102-121). London: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaukonen, P. & Tamminen, T. (1998). The psychiatric infant-family ward at Tempere University Hospital. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19 (2), 168-179.
Kendrick, D., Elkan, R., Hewitt, M., Dewey, M., Blair, M., Williams, D., & Brummell, K. (2000). Does home visiting improve parenting and the quality of the home environment? A systematic review and meta analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 82, 443-451.
Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Hanks, C., 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. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 644-652.
Kunkel, B. E. (1981). Successful nurturing in residential treatment for abused children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 5, 249-255.
Lamb, M. E. & Hwang, C.-P. (1982). Maternal attachment and mother-infant bonding: A critical review. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in Developmental Psychology Vol. 2 ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Larson, C. P. (1980). Efficacy of prenatal and postpartum home visits on child health and development. Pediatrics, 66, 191-197. Lazar, I. & Darlington, R. (1982). ‘Lasting effects of early education’, Monographs of the Society of research in Child Development, 47(2-3), Serial No. 195. Lealman, G. T., Haigh, D., Phillips, J. M., Stone, J., & Ord-Smith, C. (1983). Prediction and prevention of child abuse – an empty hope? Lancet, 1, 1423-1424.
Leib, S. A., Benfield, G. & Guidubaldi, J. (1980). Effects of Early Intervention and Stimulation on the Preterm Infant. Pediatrics, 66 (1), 83-90.
Leifer, M., Wax, L.C., Leventhal-Belfer, L., & Fouchia, A., et al (1989). The use of multitreatment modalities in early intervention: a quantitative case study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10(2), 100-116.
Leifer, M. & Smith, S. (1990). Preventive intervention with a depressed mother with mental retardation and her infant: a quantitative case study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11, 301-314.
Levitt, E. & Cohen, S. (1975). An analysis of selected parent intervention programs for handicapped and disadvantaged children. Journal of Special Education, 9, 345-365.
Liaw, F. (1991). The efficacy of early intervention for low birth weight infants: What works, how, and for whom? unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Lieberman, A. F., Weston, D. R., & Pawl, J. H. (1991). Preventive intervention and outcome with anxiously attached dyads. Child Development, 62, 199-209.
Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. W. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
Liptak, G. S., Keller, B. B., Feldman, A. W., & Chamberlin, R. W. (1983). Enhancing infant development and parent-practitioner interaction with the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale. Pediatrics, 72, 71-78.
Lojkasek, M., Cohen, N. J., & Muir, E. (1994). Where is the infant in infant intervention? A review of the literature on changing troubled mother-infant relationships. Psychotherapy, 31, 208-220.
Luster, T., Perlstadt, H., McKinney, M., Sims, K. & Juang, L. (1996) The effects of afamily support program and other factors on the home environments provided by adolescent mothers. Journal of Applied Family & Child Studies, 45, 255-264.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Botein, S., & Grunebaum, H. U. (1984). Reaching the hard-to-reach: serving isolated and depressed mothers with infants in the community. In Cohler & Musick (Eds.), Intervention with physically disabled parents and their young children. New Directions for Mental Health Services No. 24 (pp. 95-122). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Connell, D. B., Grunebaum, H. U., & Boetin, S. (1990). Infants at social risk: maternal depression and family support services as mediators of infant development and security of attachment. Child Development, 61, 85-98.
MacMillan, H. L., MacMillan, J. H., Offord, D., Griffith, L., & MacMillan, A. (1994a). Primary prevention of child physical abuse and neglect: a critical review. Part I. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 835-856.
MacMillan, H. L., MacMillan, J. H., Offord, D. R., Griffith, L., & MacMillan, A. (1994b). Primary prevention of child sexual abuse: a critical review. Part II. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 857-876.
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
Margolis, P, Lannon, C., Stevens, R., Harlan, C., Bordley, W. et al., (1996) Linking clinical and public health approaches to improve access to health care for socially disadvantaged mothers and children. A feasibility study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 150, 815-821.
McDonald Culp, A., Blankemeyer, M., & Passmark, L. (1998). Parent education home visitation program: adolescent and nonadolescent mother comparison after six months of intervention. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19, 111-123.
McDonough, S. C. (1993). Interaction Guidance: understanding and treating early infant-caregiver relationship disturbances. In C.H.Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 414-426). London: The Guildford Press.
McDonough, S. C. (1995). Promoting positive early parent-infant relationships through interaction guidance. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 4, 661-672.
McGuire, J. & Earls, F. (1991). Prevention of psychiatric disorders in early childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 129-154.
Meisels, S. J., Dichtelmiller, M., & Liaw, F.-R. (1993). A multidimensional analysis of early childhood intervention programs. In C.H.Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 361-385). London: The Guildford Press.
Minde, K. & Tidmarsh, L. (1997). The changing practices of an infant psychiatry program: the McGill experience. Infant Mental Health Journal, 18, 135-144.
Moxley-Haegert, L. & Serbin, L. A. (1983). Developmental education for parents of delayed infants: Effects on parental motivation and children’s development. Child Development, 54, 1324-1331.
Muir, E. (1992). Watching, waiting, and wondering: applying psychoanalytic principles to mother-infant intervention. Infant Mental Health Journal, 13, 319-328.
Muir, E. E. & Thorlaksdottir, E. (1994). Psychotherapeutic intervention with mothers and children in day care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64 (1), 60-67.
Myers, B. J. (1982). Early intervention using Brazelton training with middle-class mothers and fathers of newborns. Child Development, 53, 462-471.
Nye, C. L., Zucker, R. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1995). Early intervention in the path to alcohol problems through conduct problems: treatment involvement and child behavior change. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 63, 831-840.
Oates, R.K., Gray, J., Schweitzer, L., Kempe, R.S. et al. (1995) A therapeutic preschool for abused children: the Keepsafe Project. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 221-230.
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Tatelbaum, R., & Chamberlin, R. (1986). Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 77, 16-28.
Olds, D. L. & Kitzman, H. (1990). Can home-visitation improve the health of women and children at environmental risk? Pediatrics, 86, 108-116.
Olds, D. L. & Kitzman, H. (1993). Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. The Future of Children, 3, 123-165.
Osofsky, J. D. & Dickson, A. (2000). Treating traumatized children: the costs of delay. Zero To Three, 20, 20-24.
Parr, M. (1997). Description of a study evaluating a new approach to preparation for parenting for women and men in the transition to parenthood (Hertfordshire Longitudinal Study, 1989-1993). Unpublished report.
Patterson, D. M. & Barnard, K. E. (1990). Parenting of low birth weight infants: A review of issues and interventions. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11, 37-56.
Pfander, S. & Bradley-Johnson, S. (1990). Effects of an intervention program and its components on NICU infants. Children’s Health Care, 19, 140-146.
Powell, C. & Grantham-McGregor, S. (1989). Home visiting of varying frequency and child development. Pediatrics, 84, 157-164.
Proulx, L. & Minde, K. (1995). Un groupe pour pères et enfants. Psychiatrie, Recherche et Intervention en Santé Mentale de l’Enfant (P.R.I.S.M.E.), 5, 191-200
Puckering, C., Rogers, J., Mills, M., Cox, A. D., & Mattsson-Graff, M. (1994). Process and evaluation of a group intervention for mothers with parenting difficulties. Child Abuse Review, 3, 299-310.
Puckering, C., Evans, J., Maddox, H., Mills, M., & Cox, A. D. (1996). Taking control: a single case study of Mellow Parenting. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, 539-550.
Puura, K., Davis, H., Papadopoulos, K., Tsiantis, J., Ispanovic-Radojkovic, V., Rudic, N., Tamminen, T., Turunen, M-M., Dragonas, T., Paradisiotou, A., Visakou, S., Day, C., Roberts, R. & Cox. A. (2000). The European Early Promotion Project: A new primary health care service to promote children’s mental health. Unpublished document, University of Tampere, Finland.
Ramey, C. T., Bryant, D. M., & Suarez, T. M. (1985). Preschool compensatory education and the modificability of intelligence: A critical review. In D. K. Detterman (Ed.), Current topics in human intelligence Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. (pp. 247-256).
Ramey, C. T. & Campbell, F. A. (1984). Preventive education for high-risk children: Cognitive consequences of the Carolina Abecedarian Project. Special Issue: American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88 (5), 515-523.
Rauh, V. A., Achenbach, T. M., Nurcombe, B., Howell, C. T., & Teti, D. M. (1988). Minimizing adverse effects of low birthweight: four-year results of an early intervention program. Child Development, 59, 544-553.
Raven, J. (1980). Intervention as interference – CORE 4, Fiche 5, E13.
Reader, L. (1984). Pre-school intervention programmes. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 10, 237-251.
Roberts, I., Kramer, M., & Suissa, S. (1996). Does home visiting prevent childhood injury? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 312, 29-32.
Robert-Tissot, C., Cramer, B., Stern, D. N., Serpa, S. R., Bachmann, J-P., Palacio-Espasa, F., Knauer, D., De Muralt, M., Berney, C. & Mendiguren, G. (1996). Outcome evaluation in brief mother-infant psychotherapies: Report on 75 cases. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17 (2), 97-114.
Ross, G. S. (1984). Home intervention for premature infants of low-income families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54 (2), 263-270.
Rossi, P. H. (1992). Assessing Family Preservation Programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 77-97.
Sandow, S. A., Clarke, A. D. B., Cox, M. V. & Stewart, F. L. (1981). Home intervention with parents of severely subnormal pre-school children: A final report. Child: Care, Health and Development, 7, 135-144.
Scarr, S. & McCartney, K. (1988). Far from home: an experimental evaluation of the Mother Child Home Program in Bermuda. Child Development, 59, 531-543.
Scarr, S. & Weinberg, R. A. (1986). The early childhood enterprise: care and education of the young. American Psychologist, 41, 1140-1146.
Schanberg, S M. & Field, T. M. (1987). Sensory deprivation stress and supplemental stimulation in the rat pup and preterm human neonate. Child Development, 58, 1431-1447.
Schorr, L. B. & Schorr, D. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor.
Scott, S. (1998). Intensive interventions to improve parenting. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 79, 90-93.
Seifer, R., Clark, G. N., & Sameroff, A. J. (1991). Positive effects of interaction coaching on infants with developmental disabilities and their mothers. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 1-11.
Shonkoff, J. P. & Hauser-Cram, P. (1987). Early intervention for disabled infants and their families: a quantitative analysis. Pediatrics, 80, 650-658.
Siegel, E., Bauman, K. E., Schaefer, E. S., Saunders, M. M. & Ingram, D. D. (1980). Hospital and home support during infancy: Impact of maternal attachment, child abuse and neglect, and health care utilization. Pediatrics, 66, 183-190.
Simeonsson, R. J., Cooper, D. H., & Scheiner, A. P. (1982). A review and analysis of the effectiveness of early intervention programs. Pediatrics, 69, 635-641.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L. J. & Wasik, B. A., (1994). Success for All: A comprehensive Approach to Prevention and Early Intervention. In R.E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing Early School Failure: Research, Policy, and Practice. (pp. 175-205). London: Allyn and Bacon.
Sokol, R. J., Woolf, R. B., Rosen, M. G., & Weingarden, K. (1980). Risk, antepartum care, and outcome: impact of a maternity and infant care project. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 56, 150-156.
Sparling, J., Lewis, I., Ramey, C. T., Wasik, B. H., Bryant, D. M. & La Vange, L. M. (1991). Partners: A curriculum to help premature, low-birth-weight infants get off to a good start. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11, 36-55.
Spence Boocock, S. (1995). Early childhood programs in other nations: goals and outcomes. The Future of Children, 5.
Spencer, B., Thomas, H. & Morris, J. (1989). A randomized controlled trial of the provision of a social support service during pregnancy: the South Manchester Family Worker Project. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 96, 281-288.
Spivak, H. R., Bonanno, R. A. & Cracknell, M. (1980). Patient and provider factors associated with selected measures of quality of care. Pediatrics, 65 (2), 307-313.
St.Pierre, R. G., Layzer, J. I., & Barnes, H. V. (1995). Two-generation programs: design, cost, and short-term effectiveness. The Future of Children, 5.
St.Pierre, R. G. & Layzer, J. I. (1999). Using home visits for multiple purposes: the Comprehensive Child Development Program. The Future of Children, 9, 151.
Strayhorn, J. M. & Weidman, C. S. (1991). Follow-up one year after parent-child interaction training: effects on behavior of preschool children. Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 138-143.
Taylor, D. K. & Beauchamp, C. (1988). Hospital-based primary prevention strategy in child abuse: a multi-level needs assessment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12, 343-354.
Teerikangas, O. M., Aronen, E. T., Martin, R. P. & Huttunen, M. O. (1998). Effects of infant temperament and early intervention on the psychiatric symptoms of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37 (10), 1070-1076.
van den Boom, D. C. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: an experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants. Child Development, 65, 1457-1477.
van den Boom, D. C. (1995). Do first-year intervention effects endure? Follow-up during toddlerhood of a sample of Dutch irritable infants. Child Development 66, 1799-1816.
von Hofacker, N. & Papousek, M. (1998). Disorders of excessive crying, feeding, and sleeping: The Munich Interdisciplinary Research and Intervention Program. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19, 180-201
van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., & Duyvesteyn, M. G. C. (1995). Breaking the intergenerational cycle of insecure attachment: a review of the effects of attachment-based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant security. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 225-248.
Wagner, M. M. & Clayton, S. L. (1999). The Parents as Teachers Program: results from two demonstrations. The Future of Children, 9, 91-115.
Ware, L. M., Osofsky, J. D., Eberhart-Wright, A., & Leichtman, M. L. (1987). Challenges of home visitor interventions with adolescent mothers and their infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8, 418-428.
Wasik, B.A., Bryant, D.M. & Lyons, C.M. (1990) Home visiting: Procedures for helping families. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wasik, B. A. & Karweit, N. L. (1994). Off to a Good Start: Effects of Birth to Three Interventions on Early School Success. In R.E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing Early School Failure: Research, Policy, and Practice. (pp. 13-57). London: Allyn and Bacon.
Wasik, B. H., Ramey, C. T., Bryant, D. M., & Sparling, J. J. (1990). A longitudinal study of two early intervention strategies: Project CARE. Child Development, 61, 1682-1696.
Wasik, B. H. & Roberts, R. N. (1994). Survey of home visiting programs for abused and neglected children and their families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 271-283.
Weikart, D. P., Epstein, A. S., Schweinhart, L., & Bond, J. T. (1978). The Ypsilanti preschool curriculum demonstration project. (Vols. Monograph Series No. 4) Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
Weissbourd, B. (1993). Family support programs. In C.H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 402-413). London: The Guilford Press.
Wendland-Carro, J., Piccinini, C. A., & Stuart Millar, W. (1999). The role of an early intervention on enhancing the quality of mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 70, 713-721.
White, K. & Casto, G. (1985). An Integrative Review of Early Intervention Efficacy Studies with At-Risk Children: Implications for the Handicapped. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, (1-2), 7-31.
White, K. R., Mastropieri, M., & Casto, G. (1984). An analysis of special education early childhood projects approved by the Joint Dissemination Review Panel. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood, 9, 11-26.
White, K. R., Taylor, M. J., & Moss, V. D. (1992). Does research support claims about the benefits of involving parents in early intervention programs? Review of Educational Research, 62, 91-125.
Widmayer, S. M. & Field, T. M. (1981). Effects of Brazelton demonstrations for mothers on the development of preterm infants. Pediatrics, 67, 711-714.
Wingerd Bristor, M., Helfer, R. E., & Coy, K. B. (1984). Effects of perinatal coaching on mother-infant interaction. AJDC, 138, 254-257.
Woolfson, L. H. (1999). Using a model of transactional developmental regulation to evaluate the effectiveness of an early intervention programme for pre-school children with motor impairments. Child: Care, Health & Development, 25, 55-79.
Wright, B. M. (1986). An approach to infant-parent psychotherapy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 7, 4, 247-263.
Wright, C. M., Callum, J., Birks, E. & Jarvis, S. (1988). Effect of community based management in failure to thrive: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 317, 571-574.
Wylie, C. (1994). What research on early childhood education/care outcomes can, and can't tell policymakers. (Rep. No. ISBN-0-908916-65-5). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28-54.
Zeanah, C. H., Boris, N. W., & Larrieu, J. A. (1997). Infant development and developmental risk: a review of the past 10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 165-178.