Prevention Science

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 15–24 | Cite as

Effects of Home Visiting Program Implementation on Preventive Health Care Access and Utilization: Results from a Randomized Trial of Healthy Families Oregon

  • Beth GreenEmail author
  • Mary Beth Sanders
  • Jerod M. Tarte


Home visiting programs are an increasingly popular mechanism for providing a broad set of early prevention supports to high-risk families. A key intended outcome for these programs is to support maternal and child health by helping families increase access to and use of preventive health care services. For many community-based home visiting programs, however, there is less evidence of positive outcomes in the health care domain. The current study used a randomized trial conducted in a statewide early childhood home visiting program, Healthy Families Oregon (HFO), to examine program impacts on families’ use of preventive health care services. The study recruited a large sample of participants (n = 1438 HFO families and n = 1289 controls) and utilized state agency health insurance and medical records as the primary data source. There were challenges in providing services in alignment with an intent-to-treat research design, leading to the need to take alternative approaches to analyzing effects of service receipt on outcomes. Results found that while there were no significant differences in health care access or utilization in the intent-to-treat models, positive outcomes were found when propensity score matching was used to limit the program sample to those who actually received services. Further, within the program group, children who were enrolled for longer had fewer gaps in health insurance coverage and received more well-baby visits and immunizations compared to those with less service. The role of the home visitor in helping families navigate the complexities of publicly funded health care is discussed. Investments in professional development strategies that can increase staff expertise in this area and improve family retention may be needed to more effectively achieve intended health outcomes.


Early childhood Home visiting Health care Randomized trials 



This research was supported by grant no. 90CA1782 from the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from individual participants included in the study.


  1. Ammerman, R. T., Altaye, M., Putnam, F. W., Teeters, A. R., Zou, Y., & Van Ginkel, J. B. (2015). Depression improvement and parenting in low-income mothers in home visiting. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 18, 555–563. Scholar
  2. Anisfeld, E., Sandy, J., & Guterman, N. B. (2004). Best beginnings: A randomized controlled trial of a paraprofessional home visiting program: Technical report. Report to the Smith Richardson Foundation and New York State Office of Children and Family Services. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 399–424. Scholar
  4. Avellar, S. A., & Supplee, L. H. (2013). Effectiveness of home visiting in improving child health and reducing child maltreatment. Pediatrics, 132, S90–S99. Scholar
  5. Bilheimer, L. T., & Klein, R. J. (2010). Data and measurement issues in the analysis of health disparities. Health Services Research, 45, 1489–1507. Scholar
  6. Bruns, E. J., Burchard, J. D., Suter, J. C., Leverentz-Brady, K., & Force, M. M. (2004). Assessing fidelity to a community-based treatment for youth: The Wraparound Fidelity Index. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 79–89. Scholar
  7. Caldera, D., Burrell, L., Rodriguez, K., Crowne, S. S., Rohde, C., & Duggan, A. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program on parenting and on child health and development. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 829–852. Scholar
  8. Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72. Scholar
  9. DeVoe, J. E., Graham, A., Krois, L., Smith, J., & Fairbrother, G. L. (2008). “Mind the gap” in children’s health insurance coverage: Does the length of a child’s coverage gap matter? Ambulatory Pediatrics, 8, 129–134. Scholar
  10. Dodge, K. A., Goodman, W. B., Murphy, R. A., O’Donnell, K., & Sato, J. (2013). Randomized controlled trial of universal postnatal nurse home visiting: Impact on emergency care. Pediatrics, 132, S140–S146. Scholar
  11. Duggan, A. K., McFarlane, E. C., Windham, A. M., Rohde, C. A., Salkever, D. S., Fuddy, L., et al. (1999). Evaluation of Hawaii’s healthy start program. Future of Children, 9, 66–90; discussion 177–178. Scholar
  12. DuMont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Green, R., Lee, E., Lowenfels, A., Rodriguez, M., & Dorabawila, V. (2008). Healthy Families New York (HFNY) randomized trial: Effects on early child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 295–315. Scholar
  13. Enders, C. K. (2001). The performance of the full information maximum likelihood estimator in multiple regression models with missing data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 713–740. Scholar
  14. Filene, J. H., Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., & Cachat, P. (2013). Components associated with home visiting program outcomes: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132, 100–109. Scholar
  15. Goyal, N. K., Hall, E. S., Meinzen-Derr, J. K., Kahn, R. S., Short, J. A., Van Ginkel, J. B., & Ammerman, R. T. (2013). Dosage effect of prenatal home visiting on pregnancy outcomes in at-risk, first-time mothers. Pediatrics, 132, S118–S125. Scholar
  16. Granger, R. C., & Maynard, R. (2015). Unlocking the potential of the “what works” approach to policymaking and practice: Improving impact evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 36, 558–569. Scholar
  17. Green, B. L., Tarte, J. M., Lambarth, C. H., Snoddy, A. M., & Nuzzo, W. (2009). Healthy start of Oregon: Annual report on child maltreatment outcomes. Submitted to the Oregon Commission on Children and Families.Google Scholar
  18. Green, B. L., Tarte, J. M., Harrison, P. M., Nygren, M., & Sanders, M. B. (2014). Results from a randomized trial of the Healthy Families Oregon accredited statewide program: Early program impacts on parenting. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 288–298. Scholar
  19. Green, B. L., Sanders, M. B., & Tarte, J. M. (2017). Using administrative data to evaluate the effectiveness of the Healthy Families Oregon home visiting program: 2-year impacts on child maltreatment & service utilization. Children and Youth Services Review, 75, 77–86. Scholar
  20. Harding, K., Galano, J., Martin, J., Huntington, L., & Schellenbach, C. J. (2007). Healthy Families America® Effectiveness: A comprehensive review of outcomes. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 34, 149–179. Scholar
  21. Howard, K. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). The role of home-visiting programs in preventing child abuse and neglect. The Future of Children, 19, 119–146. Scholar
  22. Jacobs, F., Easterbrooks, M., Goldberg, J., Mistry, J., Bumgarner, E., Raskin, M., et al. (2016). Improving adolescent parenting: Results from a randomized controlled trial of a home visiting program for young families. American Journal of Public Health, 106, 342–349. Scholar
  23. Kahn, J., & Moore, K. A. (2010). What works for home visiting programs: Lessons from experimental evaluations of programs and interventions. Child Trends.Google Scholar
  24. Korfmacher, J., Green, B. L., Staerkel, F., Peterson, C., Cook, G., Roggman, L., et al. (2008). Parent involvement in early childhood home visiting. Child & Youth Care Forum, 37, 171–196. Scholar
  25. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2003). The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care, 41, 1284–1292. Scholar
  26. Ku, L., & Steinmetz, E. (2013). Bridging the gap: Continuity and quality of coverage in Medicaid. Washington, DC: Association for Community Affiliated Plans Retrieved from Scholar
  27. Landsverk, J., Carrilio, T., Connelly, C. D., Ganger, W. C., Slymen, D. J., Newton, R. R., et al. (2002). Healthy Families San Diego clinical trial: Technical report. San Diego, CA: State of California Department of Social Services: Office of Child Abuse Prevention.Google Scholar
  28. LaSala, K. B. (2017). Nursing workforce issues in rural and urban settings: Looking at the difference in recruitment, retention and distribution. Online Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care, 1, 8–24. Scholar
  29. Latimore, A. D., Burrell, L., Crowne, S., Ojo, K., Cluxton-Keller, F., Gustin, S., et al. (2017). Exploring multilevel factors for family engagement in home visiting across two national models. Prevention Science, 18, 577–589. Scholar
  30. LeCroy, C. W., & Davis, M. F. (2016). Randomized trial of Healthy Families Arizona: Quantitative and qualitative outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice, 27, 747–757. Scholar
  31. LeCroy, C. W., & Krysik, J. (2011). Randomized trial of the Healthy Families Arizona home visiting program. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1761–1766. Scholar
  32. Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Izzo, C., Greene, R., Lee, E., & Lowenfels, A. (2005). Evaluation of Healthy Families New York (HFNY): First year program impacts. Albany, NY: University at Albany, Center for Human Services Research.Google Scholar
  33. Nygren, P., Green, B. L., & Rockhill, A. (2017). MIECHV Oregon retention evaluation. Final report submitted to the U.S. DHHS Administration for Children and Families, November 2017, Grant #D89MC28286.Google Scholar
  34. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., & Kitzman, H. (1994). Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring effects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25-50 months of life? Pediatrics, 93, 89–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., et al. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect: Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA, 278, 637–643. Scholar
  36. Olds, D. L., Baca, P., McClatchey, M., Ingoldsby, E. M., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., et al. (2015). Cluster randomized controlled trial of intervention to increase participant retention and completed home visits in the nurse-family partnership. Prevention Science, 16, 778–788. Scholar
  37. Raikes, H., Green, B. L., Atwater, J., Kisker, E., Constantine, J., & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2006). Involvement in Early Head Start home visiting services: Demographic predictors and relations to child and parent outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 2–24. Scholar
  38. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38. Scholar
  39. Sama-Miller, E., Akers, L., Mraz-Esposito, A., Zukiewicz, M., Avellar, S., Paulsell, D., & Del Grosso, P. (2017). Home visiting evidence of effectiveness review: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Retrieved from Scholar
  40. Schnitzer, P. G., Slusher, P. L., Kruse, R. L., & Tarleton, M. M. (2011). Identification of ICD codes suggestive of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 3–17. Scholar
  41. Schochet, P. Z., & Burghardt, J. (2007). Using propensity scoring to estimate program-related subgroup impacts in experimental program evaluations. Evaluation Review, 31, 95–120. Scholar
  42. Schonberg, S. K., Anderson, S. J., Bays, J. A., Duncan, P., Felice, M. E., Frader, J. E., et al. (1998). The role of home-visitation programs in improving health outcomes for children and families. Pediatrics, 101, 486–489. Scholar
  43. Seid, M., Varni, J. W., Cummings, L., & Schonlau, M. (2006). The impact of realized access to care on health-related quality of life: A 2-year prospective study of children in the California State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Journal of Pediatrics, 149, 354–361. Scholar
  44. Sweet, M. A., & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development, 75, 1435–1456. Scholar
  45. Taubman, S., Allen, H., Wright, B., Baicker, K., & Finkelstein, A. (2014). Medicaid increases emergency department use: Evidence from Oregon’s health insurance experiment. Science, 343, 263–268. Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (2016). Using administrative data in social policy research, OPRE Report #2016–62, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  47. Williams, C. M., Cprek, S., Asaolu, I., English, B., Jewell, T., Smith, K., & Robl, J. (2017). Kentucky health access nurturing development services home visiting program improves maternal and child health. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21, 1166–1174. Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Early Childhood & Family Support Research, Center for Improvement of Child and Family ServicesPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.NPC ResearchPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations