Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of trials reporting on developmental delays

From: Effectiveness of home visiting programs on child outcomes: a systematic review

Outcome

Study

Results

Psychomotor & Cognitive Development

Aracena, et al. [13]

Non-significant

 

Black, et al. [15]

Non-significant

 

Caldera, et al. [17]

Intervention group more likely to score within normal range of the BSID than control group

 

Cupples, et al. [18]

Non-significant

 

Hamadani, et al. [24]

Intervention effects on mental development index of the BSID, but not motor development

 

Grantham-McGregor, et al. [23]

Intervention effects on development quotient and subscales of locomotor, hand eye coordination, hearing and speech, and performance.

 

Johnson, et al. [25]

Intervention effect on developmental stimulation, but not motor development games

 

Kartin, et al. [26]

Non-significant

 

Nair, et al. [31]

Intervention group had higher scores on psychomotor development index of the BSID than control group

Child Behaviour

Caldera, et al. [17]

Intervention group scored better on the internalizing/externalizing scale of the Child Behavior Check List than control group

 

Hamadani, et al. [24]

Intervention benefited cooperation, response-to-examiner, emotional tone and vocalizations.

 

Kartin, et al. [26]

Non-significant

Language Development

Aracena, et al. [13]

Non-significant

 

Black, et al. [15]

Intervention group showed less decline in receptive and expressive language compared to control group

 

King, et al. [27]

Non-significant

 

Nair, et al. [31]

Non-significant

 

Necoechea [32]

Intervention effect noted for expressive language skills, but not receptive or emergent literacy skills