Identification of families in need of support : correlates of adverse childhood experiences in the right@home sustained nurse home visiting program

Background Little is known about the efficacy of pregnancy screening tools using non-sensitive sociodemographic questions to identify the possible presence of as yet undiagnosed disease in individuals and later adverse childhood events disclosure. Objectives The study aims were to: 1) record the prevalence of risk disclosed by families during receipt of a sustained nurse home visiting program; and 2) explore patterns of relationships between the disclosed risks for their child having adverse experiences and the antenatal screening tool, which used non-sensitive demographic questions. Design Retrospective, observational study. Participants and methods Data about the participants in the intervention arm of the Australian right@home trial, which is scaffolded on the Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting model, collected between 2013 and 2017 were used. Screening data from the 10-item antenatal survey of non-sensitive demographic risk factors and disclosed risks recorded by the nurse in audited case files during the subsequent 2 year intervention were examined (n = 348). Prevalence of disclosed risks for their child having adverse experiences were analysed in 2019 using multiple response frequencies. Phi correlations were conducted to test associations between screening factors and disclosed risks. Results Among the 348 intervention participants whose files were audited, 300 were noted by nurses to have disclosed risks during the intervention, with an average of four disclosures. The most prevalent maternal disclosures were depression or anxiety (57.8%). Mental health issues were the most prevalent partner and family disclosures. Screening tool questions on maternal smoking in pregnancy, not living with another adult, poverty and self-reporting anxious mood were significantly associated with a number of disclosed risks for their child having adverse experiences. Conclusions These findings suggest that a non-sensitive sociodemographic screening tool may help to identify families at higher risk for adverse childhood experiences for whom support from a sustained nurse home visiting program may be beneficial

Economic evaluation of an Australian nurse home visiting programme : a randomised trial at 3 years

Objectives To investigate the additional programme cost and cost-effectiveness of ‘right@home’ Nurse Home Visiting (NHV) programme in relation to improving maternal and child outcomes at child age 3 years compared with usual care. Design A cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective alongside a randomised trial of NHV over 3-year period. Costs and quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) were discounted at 5%. Analysis used an intention-to-treat approach with multiple imputation. Setting The right@home was implemented from 2013 in Victoria and Tasmania states of Australia, as a primary care service for pregnant women, delivered until child age 2 years. Participants 722 pregnant Australian women experiencing adversity received NHV (n=363) or usual care (clinic visits) (n=359). Primary and secondary outcome measures First, a cost–consequences analysis to compare the additional costs of NHV over usual care, accounting for any reduced costs of service use, and impacts on all maternal and child outcomes assessed at 3 years. Second, cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective compared additional costs to maternal QALYs to express cost-effectiveness in terms of additional cost per additional QALY gained. Results When compared with usual care at child age 3 years, the right@home intervention cost $A7685 extra per woman (95$A7006 to $A8364) and generated 0.01 more QALYs (95$A50 000 per QALY. Conclusions Benefits of NHV to parenting at 2 years and maternal health and well-being at 3 years translate into marginal maternal QALY gains. Like previous cost-effectiveness results for NHV programmes, right@home is not cost-effective at 3 years. Given the relatively high up-front costs of NHV, long-term follow-up is needed to assess the accrual of health and economic benefits over time

Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy

Background: Tobacco smoking remains one of the few preventable factors associated with complications in pregnancy, and has serious long-term implications for women and babies. Smoking in pregnancy is decreasing in high-income countries, but is strongly associated with poverty and is increasing in low- to middle-income countries. Objectives: To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes. Search methods: In this sixth update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (13 November 2015), checked reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials, and quasi-randomised controlled trials of psychosocial smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data. Direct comparisons were conducted in RevMan, with meta-regression conducted in STATA 14. Main results: The overall quality of evidence was moderate to high, with reductions in confidence due to imprecision and heterogeneity for some outcomes. One hundred and two trials with 120 intervention arms (studies) were included, with 88 trials (involving over 28,000 women) providing data on smoking abstinence in late pregnancy. Interventions were categorised as counselling, health education, feedback, incentives, social support, exercise and dissemination. In separate comparisons, there is high-quality evidence that counselling increased smoking cessation in late pregnancy compared with usual care (30 studies; average risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.73) and less intensive interventions (18 studies; average RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47). There was uncertainty whether counselling increased the chance of smoking cessation when provided as one component of a broader maternal health intervention or comparing one type of counselling with another. In studies comparing counselling and usual care (largest comparison), it was unclear whether interventions prevented smoking relapse among women who had stopped smoking spontaneously in early pregnancy. However, a clear effect was seen in smoking abstinence at zero to five months postpartum (11 studies; average RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.01) and 12 to 17 months (two studies, average RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.96), with a borderline effect at six to 11 months (six studies; average RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77). In other comparisons, the effect was unclear for most secondary outcomes, but sample sizes were small. Evidence suggests a borderline effect of health education compared with usual care (five studies; average RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55), but the quality was downgraded to moderate as the effect was unclear when compared with less intensive interventions (four studies; average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.70), alternative interventions (one study; RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.19 to 18.60), or when smoking cessation health education was provided as one component of a broader maternal health intervention. There was evidence feedback increased smoking cessation when compared with usual care and provided in conjunction with other strategies, such as counselling (average RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 10.21), but the confidence in the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate as this was based on only two studies and the effect was uncertain when feedback was compared to less intensive interventions (three studies; average RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.20). High-quality evidence suggests incentive-based interventions are effective when compared with an alternative (non-contingent incentive) intervention (four studies; RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.09). However pooled effects were not calculable for comparisons with usual care or less intensive interventions (substantial heterogeneity, I2 = 93%). High-quality evidence suggests the effect is unclear in social support interventions provided by peers (six studies; average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.07), in a single trial of support provided by partners, or when social support for smoking cessation was provided as part of a broader intervention to improve maternal health. The effect was unclear in single interventions of exercise compared to usual care (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.01) and dissemination of counselling (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.32). Importantly, high-quality evidence from pooled results demonstrated that women who received psychosocial interventions had a 17% reduction in infants born with low birthweight, a significantly higher mean birthweight (mean difference (MD) 55.60 g, 95% CI 29.82 to 81.38 g higher) and a 22% reduction in neonatal intensive care admissions. However the difference in preterm births and stillbirths was unclear. There did not appear to be adverse psychological effects from the interventions. The intensity of support women received in both the intervention and comparison groups has increased over time, with higher-intensity interventions more likely to have higher-intensity comparisons, potentially explaining why no clear differences were seen with increasing intervention intensity in meta-regression analyses. Among meta-regression analyses: studies classified as having 'unclear' implementation and unequal baseline characteristics were less effective than other studies. There was no clear difference between trials implemented by researchers (efficacy studies), and those implemented by routine pregnancy staff (effectiveness studies), however there was uncertainty in the effectiveness of counselling in four dissemination trials where the focus on the intervention was at an organisational level. The pooled effects were similar in interventions provided for women classified as having predominantly low socio-economic status, compared to other women. The effect was significant in interventions among women from ethnic minority groups; however not among indigenous women. There were similar effect sizes in trials with biochemically validated smoking abstinence and those with self-reported abstinence. It was unclear whether incorporating use of self-help manuals or telephone support increased the effectiveness of interventions. Authors' conclusions: Psychosocial interventions to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy can increase the proportion of women who stop smoking in late pregnancy and the proportion of infants born low birthweight. Counselling, feedback and incentives appear to be effective, however the characteristics and context of the interventions should be carefully considered. The effect of health education and social support is less clear. New trials have been published during the preparation of this review and will be included in the next update

Nurse home visiting for families experiencing adversity : a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES: Nurse home visiting (NHV) may redress inequities in children's health and development evident by school entry. We tested the effectiveness of an Australian NHV program (right@home), offered to pregnant women experiencing adversity, hypothesizing improvements in (1) parent care, (2) responsivity, and (3) the home learning environment at child age 2 years. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of NHV delivered via universal child and family health services was conducted. Pregnant women experiencing adversity (≥2 of 10 risk factors) with sufficient English proficiency were recruited from antenatal clinics at 10 hospitals across 2 states. The intervention comprised 25 nurse visits to child age 2 years. Researchers blinded to randomization assessed 13 primary outcomes, including Home Observation of the Environment (HOME) Inventory (6 subscales) and 25 secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1427 eligible women, 722 (50.6%) were randomly assigned; 306 of 363 (84%) women in the intervention and 290 of 359 (81%) women in the control group provided 2-year data. Compared with women in the control group, those in the intervention reported more regular child bedtimes (adjusted odds ratio 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25 to 2.48), increased safety (adjusted mean difference [AMD] 0.22; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.37), increased warm parenting (AMD 0.09; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16), less hostile parenting (reverse scored; AMD 0.29; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41), increased HOME parental involvement (AMD 0.26; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.38), and increased HOME variety in experience (AMD 0.20; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The right@home program improved parenting and home environment determinants of children's health and development. With replicability possible at scale, it could be integrated into Australian child and family health services or trialed in countries with similar child health services