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 |