Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Evaluating the real-world implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage study›References

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Evaluating the real-world implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage study · References

References

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 22 min read

  1. Cavallaro FL, Gilbert R, Wijlaars L, Kennedy E, Swarbrick A, van der Meulen J, Harron K. Evaluating the real-world implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership in England: protocol for a data linkage study. BMJ Open 2020;10:e038530.
  2. Cavallaro FL, Gilbert R, Wijlaars LP, Kennedy E, Howarth E, Kendall S, et al. Characteristics of enrolment in an intensive home-visiting programme among eligible first-time adolescent mothers in England: a linked administrative data cohort study. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2022;76:991–8.
  3. Office for National Statistics (ONS). Birth Characteristics 2019. ONS; 2022. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/datasets/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales (accessed 5 October 2022).
  4. Crawford C, Cribb J, Kelly E. Teenage Pregnancy in England. Contract No.: December 2019. 2013. URL: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/teenage-pregnancy-england (accessed 5 January 2023).
  5. Wellings K, Palmer MJ, Geary RS, Gibson LJ, Copas A, Datta J, et al. Changes in conceptions in women younger than 18 years and the circumstances of young mothers in England in 2000–12: an observational study. Lancet 2016;388:586–95.27229190
  6. Bellis MA, Hughes K, Leckenby N, Perkins C, Lowey H. National household survey of adverse childhood experiences and their relationship with resilience to health-harming behaviors in England. BMC Med 2014;12:72.24886026
  7. Rigsby DC, Macones GA, Driscoll DA. Risk factors for rapid repeat pregnancy among adolescent mothers: a review of the literature. J Ped Adoles Gynecol 1998;11:115–26.
  8. Restrepo-Méndez MC, Lawlor DA, Horta BL, Matijasevich A, Santos IS, Menezes AMB, et al. The association of maternal age with birthweight and gestational age: a cross-cohort comparison. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2015;29:31–40.25405673
  9. Cunnington AJ. What’s so bad about teenage pregnancy? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2001;2736–41.12457546
  10. Stier DM, Leventhal JM, Berg AT, Johnson L, Mezger J. Are children born to young mothers at increased risk of maltreatment? Pediatrics 1993;91:642–8.8441574
  11. Gonzalez A, MacMillan HL. Preventing child maltreatment: an evidence-based update. J Postgrad Med 2008;54:280–6.18953147
  12. Jutte DP, Roos NP, Brownell MD, Briggs G, MacWilliam L, Roos LL. The ripples of adolescent motherhood: social, educational, and medical outcomes for children of teen and prior teen mothers. Acad Pediatr 2010;10:293–301.20674531
  13. Wiggins M, Oakley A, Sawtell M, Austerberry H, Clemens F, Elbourne D. Teenage Parenthood and Social Exclusion: A Multi-Method Study – Summary Report of Findings. Contract No.: November 2019. London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education; 2005. URL: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10003007/1/Wiggins2005TeenageParenthood.pdf (accessed 5 October 2022).
  14. Lawlor D, Shaw M, Johns S. Teenage pregnancy is not a public health problem. BMJ 2001;323:1428.
  15. Buck D, Gregory S. Improving the Public’s Health: A Resource for Local Authorities. London: The King’s Fund; 2013.
  16. Booth CM, Tannock IF. Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. Br J Cancer 2014;110:551–5.24495873
  17. Cowley S, Whittaker K, Malone M, Donetto S, Grigulis A, Maben J. What makes health visiting successful – or not? 1. Universality. J Health Visit 2018;6:352–60.
  18. Public Health England. Best Start in Life and Beyond: Improving Public Health Outcomes for Children, Young People and Families. Guidance to Support the Commissioning of the Healthy Child Programme 0 to 19: Health Visiting and School Nursing Services. Contract No.: January 2021. London: Public Health England; 2018. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716028/best_start_in_life_and_beyond_commissioning_guidance_2.pdf (accessed 5 October 2022).
  19. Marmot M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review. Contract No.: January 2021. London: Strategic Review of Health Inequalitites in England post-2010; 2010. URL: www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review/fair-society-healthy-lives-full-report-pdf.pdf (accessed 5 October 2022).
  20. Robling M, Bekkers M-J, Bell K, Butler CC, Cannings-John R, Channon S, et al. Effectiveness of a nurse-led intensive home-visitation programme for first-time teenage mothers (building blocks): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387:146–55.26474809
  21. Olds DL, Hill PL, O’Brien R, Racine D, Moritz P. Taking preventive intervention to scale: the nurse–family partnership. Cogn Behav Pract 2003;10:278–90.
  22. Olds D. Building evidence to improve maternal and child health. Lancet 2016;387:105–7.26474806
  23. Barlow J, Barnes J, Sylva K, Fonagy P, Fearon P. Questioning the outcome of the Building Blocks trial. Lancet 2016;387:1615–6.
  24. Robling M, Lugg-Widger F, Cannings-John R, Sanders J, Angel L, Channon S, et al. The Family Nurse Partnership to reduce maltreatment and improve child health and development in young children: the BB:2–6 routine data-linkage follow-up to earlier RCT. Public Health Res 2021;9:1160.
  25. Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Chamberlin R, Tatelbaum R. Preventing child abuse and neglect: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics 1986;78:65–78.2425334
  26. Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Kitzman H. Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring effects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics 1994;93:89–98.8265329
  27. Kitzman H, Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Hanks C, Cole R, Tatelbaum R, et al. Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1997;278:644–52.9272896
  28. Eckenrode J, Ganzel B, Henderson CR Jr, Smith E, Olds DL, Powers J, et al. Preventing child abuse and neglect with a program of nurse home visitation: the limiting effects of domestic violence. JAMA 2000;284:1385–91.10989400
  29. Olds D, Henderson CR Jr, Kitzman H, Cole R. Effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on surveillance of child maltreatment. Pediatrics 1995;95:365–72.7862474
  30. Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Tatelbaum R. Prevention of intellectual impairment in children of women who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy. Pediatrics 1994;93:228–33.7510063
  31. Olds DL, Kitzman H, Cole R, Robinson JA, Sidora K, Luckey DW, et al. Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2004;114:1550–9.15574614
  32. Olds DL, Kitzman H, Hanks C, Cole R, Anson E, Sidora-Arcoleo K, et al. Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2007;120:e832–45.17908740
  33. Kitzman H, Olds DL, Knudtson MD, Cole R, Anson B, Smith JA, et al. Prenatal and/or infancy nurse home visiting and 18-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2019;144:e20183876.31748254
  34. Olds DL, Robinson J, Pettitt L, Luckey DW, Holmberg J, Ng RK, et al. Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2004;114:1560–8.15574615
  35. Olds DL, Robinson J, O’Brien R, Luckey DW, Pettitt LM, Henderson CR, et al. Home visiting by paraprofessionals and by nurses: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2002;110:486–96.12205249
  36. Olds DL, Holmberg JR, Donelan-McCall N, Luckey DW, Knudtson MD, Robinson J. Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses on children: follow-up of a randomized trial at ages 6 and 9 years. JAMA Ped 2014;168:114–21.
  37. Olds DL, Kitzman H, Knudtson MD, Anson E, Smith JA, Cole R. Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality: results of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ped 2014;168:800–6.
  38. Olds DL, Eckenrode J, Henderson CR Jr, Kitzman H, Powers J, Cole R, et al. Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA 1997;278:637–43.9272895
  39. Olds DL, Kitzman H, Anson E, Smith JA, Knudtson MD, Miller T, et al. Prenatal and infancy nurse home visiting effects on mothers: 18-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2019;144:e20183889.31748253
  40. Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Tatelbaum R, Chamberlin R. Improving the life-course development of socially disadvantaged mothers: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Am J Public Health 1988;78:1436–45.3052116
  41. Kitzman H, Olds DL, Sidora K, Henderson CR, Hanks C, Cole R, et al. Enduring effects of nurse home visitation on maternal life course: a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA 2000;283:1983–9.10789666
  42. Olds DL, Kitzman HJ, Cole RE, Hanks CA, Arcoleo KJ, Anson EA, et al. Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on maternal life course and government spending: follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010;164:419–24.20439792
  43. McConnell MA, Rokicki S, Ayers S, Allouch F, Perreault N, Gourevitch RA, et al. Effect of an intensive nurse home visiting program on adverse birth outcomes in a medicaid-eligible population: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022;328:27–37.35788794
  44. Robling M, Bekkers MJ, Bell K, Butler CC, Cannings-John R, Channon S, et al. Effectiveness of a nurse-led intensive home-visitation programme for first-time teenage mothers (Building Blocks): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387:146–55.26474809
  45. Mejdoubi J, van den Heijkant SC, van Leerdam FJ, Heymans MW, Crijnen A, Hirasing RA. The effect of VoorZorg, the Dutch nurse–family partnership, on child maltreatment and development: a randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0120182.25830242
  46. Mejdoubi J, van den Heijkant SCCM, van Leerdam FJM, Heymans MW, Hirasing RA, Crijnen AAM. Effect of nurse home visits vs. usual care on reducing intimate partner violence in young high-risk pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e78185.
  47. Sierau S, Dahne V, Brand T, Kurtz V, von Klitzing K, Jungmann T. Effects of home visitation on maternal competencies, family environment, and child development: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Sci 2016;17:40–51.26103919
  48. Kliem S, Sandner M. Prenatal and infancy home visiting in Germany: 7-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2021;148:e2020049610.34326178
  49. Conti G, Poupakis S, Sandner M, Kliem S. The effects of home visiting on mother–child interactions: evidence from a randomized trial using dynamic micro-level data. Child Abuse Negl 2021;115:105021.33684828
  50. Catherine NL, Gonzalez A, Boyle M, Sheehan D, Jack SM, Hougham KA, et al., British Columbia Healthy Connections Project Scientific Team. Improving children’s health and development in British Columbia through nurse home visiting: a randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16:349.27488474
  51. Segal L, Nguyen H, Gent D, Hampton C, Boffa J. Child protection outcomes of the Australian Nurse Family Partnership Program for Aboriginal infants and their mothers in Central Australia. PLOS ONE 2018;13:e0208764.30532276
  52. Carabin H, Cowan LD, Beebe LA, Skaggs VJ, Thompson D, Agbangla C. Does participation in a nurse visitation programme reduce the frequency of adverse perinatal outcomes in first-time mothers? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2005;19:194–205.15860078
  53. Rubin DM, O’Reilly AL, Luan X, Dai D, Localio AR, Christian CW. Variation in pregnancy outcomes following statewide implementation of a prenatal home visitation program. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:198–204.21041588
  54. Matone M, O’Reilly AL, Luan X, Localio AR, Rubin DM. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations for injuries among infants and children following statewide implementation of a home visitation model. Matern Child Health J 2012;16:1754–61.22120426
  55. Flowers M, Sainer S, Stoneburner A, Thorland W. Education and employment outcomes in clients of the Nurse–Family Partnership. Public Health Nurs 2020;37:206–14.32022354
  56. Thorland W, Currie DW. Status of birth outcomes in clients of the Nurse–Family Partnership. Matern Child Health J 2017;21:995–1001.28105544
  57. Lugg-Widger FV, Robling M, Lau M, Paranjothy S, Pell J, Sanders J, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership home visiting programme in first time young mothers in Scotland: a protocol for a natural experiment. Int J Pop Data Sci 2020;5:1154.32935057
  58. Barnes J, Stuart J, Allen E, Petrou S, Sturgess J, Barlow J, et al. Results of the First Steps study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) programme compared with usual care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse. Public Health Res 2017. URL: http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK464661/ (accessed 5 October 2022).
  59. Mejdoubi J, van den Heijkant S, Struijf E, van Leerdam F, HiraSing R, Crijnen A. Addressing risk factors for child abuse among high risk pregnant women: design of a randomised controlled trial of the nurse family partnership in Dutch preventive health care. BMC Public Health 2011;11:823.22017924
  60. Family Nurse Partnership National Unit & Dartington Service Design Lab. FNP ADAPT: Using Evidence, Pragmatism and Collaboration to Change the FNP Programme in London. Contract No.: December 2020. London; 2020. URL: www.fnp.nhs.uk/media/1359/fnp_adapt_report_web.pdf (accessed 5 October 2022).
  61. Lawlor D, Shaw M, Johns S. Teenage pregnancy is not a public health problem. BMJ 2001;323:1428–9.
  62. Crawford C, Cribb J, Kelly E. Teenage Pregnancy in England 2013. URL: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/teenage-pregnancy-england (accessed 4 January 2024).
  63. Mejdoubi J, van den Heijkant SC, van Leerdam FJ, Crone M, Crijnen A, HiraSing RA. Effects of nurse home visitation on cigarette smoking, pregnancy outcomes and breastfeeding: a randomized controlled trial. Midwifery 2014;30:688–95.24041564
  64. Cannings-John R, Lugg-Widger F, Lau M, Paranjothy S, Pell J, Sanders J, et al. Evaluation of Family Nurse Partnership: Methods and Process of Evaluation – Appendix 1: Logic Model. Contract No.: March 2020. 2020. URL: www.gov.scot/publications/evaluation-family-nurse-partnership-scotland-methods-paper-process-success-linkages/pages/13/ (accessed 5 October 2022).
  65. Bryar RM, Cowley DSA, Adams CM, Kendall S, Mathers N. Health visiting in primary care in England: a crisis waiting to happen? Br J Gener Pract: J Royal Coll Gener Pract 2017;67:102–3.
  66. Kennedy-Martin T, Curtis S, Faries D, Robinson S, Johnston J. A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results. Trials 2015;16:495.26530985
  67. Ogilvie D, Cummins S, Petticrew M, White M, Jones A, Wheeler K. Assessing the evaluability of complex public health interventions: five questions for researchers, funders, and policymakers. Milbank Q 2011;89:206–25.21676021
  68. Booth CM, Tannock IF. Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. Br J Cancer 2014;110:551–5.24495873
  69. Harron K, Gilbert R, Cromwell D, van der Meulen J. Linking data for mothers and babies in de-identified electronic health data. PLOS ONE 2016;11:e0164667.27764135
  70. Harron KL, Doidge JC, Knight HE, Gilbert RE, Goldstein H, Cromwell DA, van der Meulen JH. A guide to evaluating linkage quality for the analysis of linked data. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:1699–710.29025131
  71. Libuy N, Harron K, Gilbert R, Caulton R, Cameron E, Blackburn R. Linking education and hospital data in England: linkage process and quality. Int J Pop Data Sci 2021;6:1671.34568585
  72. Herbert A, Wijlaars L, Zylbersztejn A, Cromwell D, Hardelid P. Data resource profile: hospital episode statistics admitted patient care (HES APC). Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:1093–1093.i.28338941
  73. International Classification of Diseases (ICD). International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). 2011. URL: https://cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd-10-cm.htm (accessed 5 October 2022).
  74. Health and Social Care Information Centre. OPCS-4 Classification of Interventions and Procedures. 2019. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/information-standards/information-standards-and-data-collections-including-extractions/publications-and-notifications/standards-and-collections/dcb0084-opcs-classification-of-interventions-and-procedures#:~:text=this%20information%20standard-,OPCS%2D4%20is%20a%20statistical%20classification%20for%20clinical%20coding%20of,data%20collections%20for%20secondary%20uses (accessed 10 May 2022).
  75. McGrath-Lone L, Harron K, Dearden L, Nasim B, Gilbert R. Data resource profile: children looked after return (CLA). Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:716–17.27413104
  76. Department for Education, National Statistics. Characteristics of Children in Need: 2018–2019. Contract No.: December 2019. 2019. URL: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/characteristics-of-children-in-need-2018-to-2019 (accessed 5 October 2022).
  77. Department for Education. Children Looked After by Local Authorities in England: Guide to the SSDA903 Collection 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020 – Version 1.2. Contract No.: December 2019. 2019. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839236/CLA_SSDA903_2019-20_Guide_Version_1.2.pdf (accessed 5 October 2022).
  78. McGrath-Lone L, Dearden L, Nasim B, Harron K, Gilbert R. Changes in first entry to out-of-home care from 1992 to 2012 among children in England. Child Abuse Negl 2016;51:163–71.26585214
  79. Grath-Lone LM, Woodman J, Gilbert R. Safeguarding children and improving their care in the UK. Lancet 2015;386:1630.
  80. Corbacho B, Bell K, Stamuli E, Richardson G, Ronaldson S, Hood K, et al., Building Blocks trial group. Cost-effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme in England: Evidence from the building blocks trial. J Eval Clin Pract 2017;23:1367–74.28799197
  81. Schnitzer PG, Slusher PL, Kruse RL, Tarleton MM. Identification of ICD codes suggestive of child maltreatment. Child Abuse Negl 2011;35:3–17.21316104
  82. Gilbert R, Fluke J, O’Donnell M, Gonzalez-Izquierdo A, Brownell M, Gulliver P, et al. Child maltreatment: variation in trends and policies in six developed countries. Lancet 2012;379:758–72.22169108
  83. Emmott EH, Jay MA, Woodman J. Cohort profile: Children in Need Census (CIN) records of children referred for social care support in England. BMJ Open 2019;9:e023771.
  84. World Health Organization (WHO). Report of a WHO Technical Consultation on Birth Spacing. Geneva, Switzerland 13–15 June 2005. Contract No.: December 2019. WHO; 2007. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/69855/WHO_RHR_07.1_eng.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 5 October 2022).
  85. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermúdez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2006;295:1809–23.16622143
  86. Department for Education, National Statistics. Early Years Foundation Stage Profile Results in England, 2018. Contract No.: December 2019. 2018. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748814/EYFSP_2018_Main_Text.pdf (accessed 5 October 2022).
  87. Herbert A, Gilbert R, González-Izquierdo A, Li L. Violence, self-harm and drug or alcohol misuse in adolescents admitted to hospitals in England for injury: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2015;5:e006079.
  88. NHS Digital. Maternity Services Monthly Statistics November 2019, Experimental Statistics – Gestational Age at Booking Appointment. Contract No.: February 2021. 2020. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/maternity-services-monthly-statistics/november-2019/analysis (accessed 5 October 2022).
  89. Harron K, Gilbert R, Fagg J, Guttmann A, van der Meulen J. Associations between pre-pregnancy psychosocial risk factors and infant outcomes: a population-based cohort study in England. Lancet Pub Health 2021;6:e97–105.33516292
  90. Hardelid P, Dattani N, Gilbert R, Programme Board of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Estimating the prevalence of chronic conditions in children who die in England, Scotland and Wales: a data linkage cohort study. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005331.
  91. Pearson RJ, Jay MA, Wijlaars LPMM, De Stavola B, Syed S, Bedston SJ, Gilbert R. Association between health indicators of maternal adversity and the rate of infant entry to local authority care in England: a longitudinal ecological study. BMJ Open 2020;10:e036564.
  92. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multiv Behav Res 2011;46:399–424.
  93. Li F, Zaslavsky AM, Landrum MB. Propensity score weighting with multilevel data. Stat Med 2013;32:3373–87.23526267
  94. Blake HA, Leyrat C, Mansfield KE, Seaman S, Tomlinson LA, Carpenter J, Williamson EJ. Propensity scores using missingness pattern information: a practical guide. Stat Med 2020;39:1641–57.32103533
  95. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009;28:3083–107.19757444
  96. Stata. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2021.
  97. Arpino B, Cannas M. Propensity score matching with clustered data. An application to the estimation of the impact of caesarean section on the Apgar score. Stat Med 2016;35:2074–91.26833893
  98. Martin C, Marryat L, Miller M, Ormston R, Gordon J. The Evaluation of the Family Nurse Partnership Programme in Scotland: Phase 1 Report – Intake and Early Pregnancy Scottish Government Social Research. 2011. URL: www.gov.scot/publications/evaluation-family-nurse-partnership-programme-scotland-phase-1-report-intake-early-pregnancy/documents/ (accessed 3 August 2022).
  99. Robling M. The Building Blocks Trial. Evaluating the Family Nurse Partnership Programme in England: A Randomised Controlled Trial. 2015. URL: www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/504729/Building-Blocks-Full-Study-Report.pdf (accessed 15 January 2019).
  100. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.
  101. Cavallaro FL, Cannings-John R, Lugg-Widger F, Gilbert R, Kennedy E, Kendall S, et al. Lessons learned from using linked administrative data to evaluate the Family Nurse Partnership in England and Scotland. Int J Population Data Sci 2023;8:2113.
  102. Harron K, McGrath-Lone L, Mason S, Gilbert R. Using Linked Administrative Data for Monitoring and Evaluating the Family Nurse Partnership in England: A Scoping Report. Contract No.: December 2020. 2016. URL: http://repository.tavistockandportman.ac.uk/1448/ (accessed 5 October 2022).
  103. Sword WA, Krueger PD, Watt MS. Predictors of acceptance of a postpartum public health nurse home visit: findings from an Ontario survey. Can J Public Health 2006;97:191–6.16827404
  104. Alonso-Marsden S, Dodge KA, O’Donnell KJ, Murphy RA, Sato JM, Christopoulos C. Family risk as a predictor of initial engagement and follow-through in a universal nurse home visiting program to prevent child maltreatment. Child Abuse Negl 2013;37:555–65.23660409
  105. Chartier MJ, Brownell MD, Isaac MR, Chateau D, Nickel NC, Katz A, et al. Is the families first home visiting program effective in reducing child maltreatment and improving child development? Child Maltreat 2017;22:121–31.28413917
  106. Bell K, Corbacho B, Ronaldson S, Richardson G, Hood K, Sanders J, et al., Building Blocks Trial Group. Costs and consequences of the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme in England: evidence from the Building Blocks trial. F1000Res 2019;8:1640.31632654
  107. 0-5 Transfer Team. Transfer of 0–5 Children’s Public Health Commissioning to Local Authorities: Equality Analysis. Contract No.: July 2021. London: Department of Health; 2015. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417429/Equality_analysis.pdf (accessed 5 October 2022).
  108. Feder GS, Hutson M, Ramsay J, Taket AR. Women exposed to intimate partner violence: expectations and experiences when they encounter health care professionals: a meta-analysis of qualitative studies. Arch J Med 2006;166:22–37.
  109. McTavish JR, Kimber M, Devries K, Colombini M, MacGregor JCD, Wathen N, MacMillan HL. Children’s and caregivers’ perspectives about mandatory reporting of child maltreatment: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open 2019;9:e025741.
  110. Lewis NV, Feder GS, Howarth E, Szilassy E, McTavish JR, MacMillan HL, Wathen N. Identification and initial response to children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: a qualitative synthesis of the perspectives of children, mothers and professionals. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019761.
  111. Sanders J, Channon S, Gobat N, Bennert K, Addison K, Robling M. Implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership programme in England: experiences of key health professionals explored through trial parallel process evaluation. BMC Nurs 2019;18:13.30976196
  112. Downs J, Setakis E, Mostafa T, Hayes R, Hotopf M, Ford T, Gilbert R. Linking strategies and biases when matching cohorts to the National Pupil Database. IJPDS (2017) Issue 1, Vol 1:348 Proceedings of the IPDLN Conference (August 2016). Int J Pop Data Sci 2017;1:369.
  113. Grath-Lone LM, Libuy N, Etoori D, Blackburn R, Gilbert R, Harron K. Ethnic bias in data linkage. Lancet Digit Health 2021;3:e339.34045000
  114. Bilson A, Martin KEC. Referrals and child protection in England: one in five children referred to children’s services and one in nineteen investigated before the age of five. Br J Soc Work 2016;47:793–811.
  115. Jay MA, De Stavola B, Dorsett R, Thomson D, Gilbert R. Model estimates of cumulative incidence of children in need status and referral to children’s social care. OSF. 2022. URL: https://osf.io/6ecrz/ (accessed 5 October 2022).
  116. Olds D. Improving the report of the Building Blocks 2–6 study. BMJ Open 2022;12. URL: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/2/e049960.responses#improving-the-report-of-the-buildling-blocks-2-6-study (accessed 5 October 2022).
  117. Saigal S, Doyle LW. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet 2008;371:261–9.18207020
  118. Libuy N, Gilbert R, Mc Grath-Lone L, Blackburn R, Etoori D, Harron K. Gestational age at birth, chronic conditions and school outcomes: a population-based data linkage study of children born in England. Int J Epidemiol 2022;52:132–143.
  119. Barker M, Dombrowski SU, Colbourn T, Fall CHD, Kriznik NM, Lawrence WT, et al. Intervention strategies to improve nutrition and health behaviours before conception. Lancet 2018;391:1853–64.29673875
  120. Goyal NK, Teeters A, Ammerman RT. Home visiting and outcomes of preterm infants: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2013;132:502–16.23940238
  121. Liu N, Li P, Wang J, Chen D, Sun W, Zhang W. Effects of home visits for pregnant and postpartum women on premature birth, low birth weight and rapid repeat birth: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Fam Pract 2019;36:533–43.30925194
  122. Harron K, Gilbert R, Cromwell D, Oddie S, Guttmann A, van der Meulen J. International comparison of emergency hospital use for infants: data linkage cohort study in Ontario and England. BMJ Qual Saf 2018;27:31–9.
  123. Teager W, McBride M. An Initial Assessment of the 2-year-old Free Childcare Entitlement: Drivers of Take-up and Impact on Early Years Outcomes. Early Intervention Foundation; 2018. URL: www.eif.org.uk/report/an-initial-assessment-of-the-2-year-old-free-childcare-entitlement (accessed 24 August 2022).
  124. Sahota P, Woodward J, Molinari R, Pike J. Factors influencing take-up of free school meals in primary- and secondary-school children in England. Public Health Nutr 2014;17:1271–9.23578731
  125. Taylor C. The reliability of free school meal eligibility as a measure of socio-economic disadvantage: evidence from the millennium cohort study in Wales. Br J Educ Stud 2018;66:29–51.
  126. Gov.uk. Schools, Pupils and Their Characteristics. 2022. URL: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics (accessed 17 August 2022).
  127. Guttmann A, Blackburn R, Amartey A, Zhou L, Wijlaars L, Saunders N, et al. Long-term mortality in mothers of infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome: a population-based parallel-cohort study in England and Ontario, Canada. PLOS Med 2019;16:e1002974.31770382
  128. Wellings K, Jones KG, Mercer CH, Tanton C, Clifton S, Datta J, et al. The prevalence of unplanned pregnancy and associated factors in Britain: findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). Lancet 2013;382:1807–16.24286786
  129. Dartington Service Design Lab, Family Nurse Partnership National Unit. FNP ADAPT: Using Evidence, Pragmatism and Collaboration to Change the FNP Programme in England 2020. URL: www.fnp.nhs.uk/media/1359/fnp_adapt_report_web.pdf (accessed 18 August 2022).
  130. Owens R. Digging Down and Scaling Up: A Psychosocial Exploration of the Family Nurse Partnership. Sussex: University of Sussex; 2020.
  131. Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IMH, Juffer F. Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychol Bull 2003;129:195–215.12696839
  132. Kliem S, Sandner M, Lohmann A, Sierau S, Dähne V, Klein AM, Jungmann T. Follow-up study regarding the medium-term effectiveness of the home-visiting program “Pro Kind” at age 7 years: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2018;19:323.29925419
  133. Cheong-See F, Allotey J, Marlin N, Mol BW, Schuit E, Riet GT, et al. Prediction models in obstetrics: understanding the treatment paradox and potential solutions to the threat it poses. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2016;123:1060–4.
  134. Feder GS, Hutson M, Ramsay J, Taket AR. Women exposed to intimate partner violence: expectations and experiences when they encounter health care professionals: a meta-analysis of qualitative studies. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:22–37.16401807
  135. Bennett V. Continuing the Mandation of the Universal Five Health Visiting Checks. Contract No.: March 2020. Public Health England; 2017. URL: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2017/03/01/continuing-the-mandation-of-the-universal-five-health-visiting-checks/ (accessed 5 October 2022).
  136. Robling M, Cannings-John R, Channon S, Hood K, Moody G, Poole R, Sanders J. What is usual care for teenagers expecting their first child in England? A process evaluation using key informant mapping and participant survey as part of the Building Blocks randomised controlled trial of specialist home visiting. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020152.
  137. Fraser C, Harron K, Barlow J, Bennett S, Woods G, Shand J, et al. Variation in health visiting contacts for children in England: cross-sectional analysis of the 2–2½ year review using administrative data (Community Services Dataset, CSDS). BMJ Open 2022;12:e053884.
  138. Public Health England. Health Visitor Service Delivery Metrics: 2019 to 2020. 2021. URL: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/health-visitor-service-delivery-metrics-2019-to-2020 (accessed 5 October 2022).
  139. Woodman J, Harron K, Hancock D. Which children in England see the health visiting team and how often? J Health Vis 2021;9:282–4.
  140. Doidge JC, Harron KL. Reflections on modern methods: linkage error bias. Int J Epidemiol 2019;48:203.
  141. Morris H, Lanati S, Gilbert R. Challenges of administrative data linkages: experiences of Administrative Data Research Centre for England (ADRC-E) researchers. Int J Pop Data Sci 2018;3:566.
  142. Dattani N, Hardelid P, Davey J, Gilbert R. Accessing electronic administrative health data for research takes time. Arch Dis Child 2013;98:391–2.23448863
  143. Taylor JA, Crowe S, Espuny Pujol F, Franklin RC, Feltbower RG, Norman LJ, et al. The road to hell is paved with good intentions: the experience of applying for national data for linkage and suggestions for improvement. BMJ Open 2021;11:e047575.
  144. Cavallaro F, Lugg-Widger F, Cannings-John R, Harron K. Reducing barriers to data access for research in the public interest – lessons from COVID-19. BMJ Opin 2020. URL: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/07/06/reducing-barriers-to-data-access-for-research-in-the-public-interest-lessons-from-covid-19/ (accessed 5 October 2022).
  145. Harron K. “It Did Mean a Lot”: What Public Engagement with Teenage Mothers Taught Us about Our Research. Contract No.: January 2022. UCL Public Engagement Blog; 2019. URL: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/public-engagement/2019/05/07/engaging-with-teenage-mothers/ (accessed 5 January 2023).
  146. Mikton C, Butchart A. Child maltreatment prevention: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ 2009;87:353–61.19551253
  147. Vlahovicova K, Melendez-Torres GJ, Leijten P, Knerr W, Gardner F. Parenting programs for the prevention of child physical abuse recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2017;20:351–65.28378136
  148. Euser S, Alink LRA, Stoltenborgh M, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. A gloomy picture: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reveals disappointing effectiveness of programs aiming at preventing child maltreatment. BMC Public Health 2015;15:1068.26476980
  149. Chen M, Chan KL. Effects of parenting programs on child maltreatment prevention: a meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse 2016;17:88–104.25573846
  150. van der Put CE, Assink M, Gubbels J, Boekhout van Solinge NF. Identifying effective components of child maltreatment interventions: a meta-analysis. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2018;21:171–202.29204796
  151. Moniz MH, Low LK, Stout MJ. Intensive nurse home visiting program and adverse birth outcomes. JAMA 2022;328:23–4.35788814
  152. Wilkinson E. Health visitor shortages are risking child health and piling pressure on other services. BMJ 2022;378:o2189.36170989
  153. Dheensa S. Recording and Sharing Information about Domestic Violence/Abuse in the Health Service. Bristol: University of Bristol; 2020. URL: www.standingtogether.org.uk/blog-3/recording-and-sharing-information-about-dva-in-the-health-service-report (accessed 5 October 2022).
  154. Francetic I, Meacock R, Elliott J, Kristensen SR, Britteon P, Lugo-Palacios DG, et al. Framework for identification and measurement of spillover effects in policy implementation: intended non-intended targeted non-targeted spillovers (INTENTS). Implement Sci 2022;3:30.
  155. Lorenc T, Oliver K. Adverse effects of public health interventions: a conceptual framework. J Epi Com Health 2014;68:288–90.
  156. Morrison K, Doi L, Hughes T, Woodier N. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Family Nurse Partnership Insights: Evaluation Report. Scottish Government; 2021. URL: www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-family-nurse-partnership-insights-evaluation (accessed 13 September 2022).
  157. Geospatial Commission. Unlocking the Power of Location. The UK’s Geospatial Strategy, 2020 to 2025. 2020. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/894755/Geospatial_Strategy.pdf (accessed 10 May 2022).
  158. Lut I, Harron K, Hardelid P, O’Brien M, Woodman J. ‘What about the dads?’ Linking fathers and children in administrative data: a systematic scoping review. Big Data Soc 2022;9:1069299.
  159. Richards JA, Xu D, Gilkerson J, Yapanel U, Gray S, Paul T. Automated assessment of child vocalization development using LENA. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017;60:2047–63.28609511
  160. Moreno-Betancur M, Lynch JW, Pilkington RM, Schuch HS, Gialamas A, Sawyer MG, et al. Emulating a target trial of intensive nurse home visiting in the policy-relevant population using linked administrative data. Int J Epidemiol. 2022;52:119–131.
  161. McGrath-Lone L, Libuy N, Harron K, Jay MA, Wijlaars L, Etoori D, et al. Data resource profile: the education and child health insights from linked data (ECHILD) database. Int J Epidemiol 2021;51:dyab149. 10.1093/ije/dyab149
  162. RCPCH. NHS Number as a Unique Identifier for Children – Position Statement. 2021. URL: www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/nhs-number-unique-identifier-children-position-statement (accessed 13 September 2022).
  163. Freeguard G, Britchfield C. Missing Numbers in Children’s Services. How Better Data Could Improve Outcomes for Children and Young People. Institute for Government. 2020. URL: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/missing-numbers-childrens-services.pdf (accessed 13 September 2022).
← Discussion and implications of evaluation findingsAdditional information →

Attribution. Francesca Cavallaro; Amanda Clery; Ruth Gilbert; Jan van der Meulen; Sally Kendall; Eilis Kennedy et al. (2024). Evaluating the real-world implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage study. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2024 Cavallaro et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK603930. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • References

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support