Journal of Primary Prevention

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 241–257 | Cite as

Translating a Research Intervention into Community Practice: The Nurse Family Partnership

Abstract

Public policy initiatives have begun to recommend that interventions have strong evidence of effectiveness before there is expenditure of restrained public funds. The Nurse Family Partnership (NFP), a home visiting program for low-income parents expecting their first child, has been identified as a preventive intervention program that meets high evidentiary standards based on results from three randomized trials. Strategies used to promote successful translation of the research intervention into clinical practice, findings from the evaluation of the replication of the NFP in 22 states, and challenges experienced in moving a research program to practice are discussed.

Editors’ Strategic Implications: Policymakers, community public health officials, and researchers planning to disseminate their prevention programs will find many lessons in this example of bringing a model program (i.e., a prevention strategy that works) up to scale. Although results at replication sites are somewhat weaker than at model sites, the consistent positive outcomes are a testimony to the strength of the NFP model and the fidelity of its implementation across sites.

Keywords

evidence-based practice dissemination strategies home visiting nursing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arriaga, R. I., Fenson, L., Cronan, T., & Pethick, S. (1998). Scores on the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory of children from low- and middle-income families. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 209–223.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Journal of Psychology, 37, 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5, 25–50.Google Scholar
  4. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). The process-person-context model in developmental research principles applications and implications. Unpublished manuscript. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  7. Brownson, R. C., Baker, E. A., Leet, T. L., & Gillespie, K. N. (2003). Evidence-based public health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J. L., Dale, P. S., & Reznick, J. S. (2000). Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gomby, D. S., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations—analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 9, 27–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanks, C., Kitzman, H., & Milligan, R. (1995). Implementing the COACH relationship model: Health promotion for mothers and children. Advances in Nursing Science, 18(2), 57–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., et al. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don’t know about the cost and benefit of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  12. Korfmacher, J., O’Brien, R., Hiatt, S., & Olds, D. (1999). Differences in program implementation between nurses and paraprofessionals providing home visits during pregnancy and infancy: A randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1847–1851.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Linver, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Kohen, D. (2002). Family processes as pathways from income to young children’s development. Developmental Psychology, 5, 719–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacMillan, H. L., & Canadian Task Force on Preventive Care. (2000). Preventive health care, 2000 update: Prevention of child maltreatment. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 163(11), 1451–1458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Moffit, T. E. (1993). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathogy, 5, 135–151.Google Scholar
  16. New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America: Final report. Rockville, MD: DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832.Google Scholar
  17. O’Brien, R. A., & Baca, P. (1997). Application of solution-focused interventions. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(1), 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Olds, D., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, Jr., C. R., Kitzman, H., Power, J., Core, R., et al. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect; 15-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of The American Medical Association, 278, 637–643.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Olds, D., Henderson Jr., C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., et al. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of The American Medical Association, 278, 644–652.Google Scholar
  20. Olds, D., Henderson, Jr., C. R., Kitzman, H., Eckenrode, J., Cole, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1998). The promise of home visitation: Results of two randomized trials. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olds, D., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., & Robinson, J. (1997). Theoretical foundations of a program of home visitation for pregnant women and parents of young children. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., O’Brien, R., Luckey, D. W., Pettitt, L. M., Henderson, Jr., C. R., et al. (2002). Home visiting by paraprofessionals and by nurses: A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 110, 486–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Olds, D., Pettitt, L. M., Robinson, J., Henderson, Jr., C., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., et al. (1998). Reducing risks for antisocial behavior with a program of prenatal and early childhood home visitation. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoenwald, S. K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: What matters when? Psychiatric Services, 52, 1190–1197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Yeung, J., Linver, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). How money matters for young children’s development: Parental investment and family processes. Child Development, 73, 1861–1879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health, (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  27. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services.Google Scholar
  28. US Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  29. Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., Schmitz, S., Emde, R. N., & Fulker, D. (1996). Behavior problems in five year-old MS and DZ twins: An examination of genetic and environmental influences, patterns of regulation and internalization of control. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 103–122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Evaluation, Nurse Family Partnership, National Center for Children, Families and Communities, School of NursingUniversity of Colorado Health Sciences Center
  2. 2.Office of Evaluation, Nurse Family Partnership, National Center for Children, Families and Communities, School of NursingUniversity of Colorado Health Sciences CenterDenver

Personalised recommendations