Skip to main content

Advertisement

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