Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Formative Evaluation of Home Visitors' Role in Addressing Poor Mental Health, Domestic Violence, and Substance Abuse Among Low-Income Pregnant and Parenting Women

  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives: This research assessed home visitor effectiveness in communicating about and responding to poor mental health, domestic violence, and substance abuse among pregnant and parenting women home visited as part of a comprehensive family support strategy in seven urban communities. Methods: Cross-sectional studies were conducted with mothers (n = 189) actively engaged in home visitation programs and home visitors (n = 45). Maternal interviews assessed need for and receipt of mental health, domestic violence, and substance abuse services, and home visitor discussion of these risk areas. Home visitor surveys assessed perceived adequacy of training and personal effectiveness in addressing these risk areas. Results: Over half of mothers needed mental health, domestic violence, or substance abuse services; however, only 27% of mothers in need of service received services. Most mothers reported having communicated with their home visitor about the three risk areas, but there were no differences in communication frequency based on whether services were needed. Most home visitors perceived themselves as effective in communicating about and responding to these risk factors but rated the training they had received in these areas as less than adequate. Conclusions: Home visitors could benefit from more intensive training in the formal assessment of risks and the protocols for communication about those risks with their clients. Home visitors could also receive support from and work in collaboration with professionals in addressing client risks. Further research on home visit content is needed to determine which strategies facilitate home visitors' ability to effectively communicate about and address client risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Gomby DS, Culross PL, Behrman RE. Home visiting: Recent program evaluations—Analysis and recommendations. Future Child 1999;9:4–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Olds DL, Hill P, Robinson J, Song N, Little C. Update on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. Curr Prob Pediatr 2000;30:109–41.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Olds DL, Henderson JR, Kitzman CR, Harriet J, Eckenrode JJ, Cole RE, et al. Prenatal and infancy home visits by nurses: Recent findings. Future Child 1999;9:44–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Daro DA, Harding KA. Healthy Families America: Using research to enhance practice. Future Child 1999;9:152–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Duggan AK, McFarlane EC, Windham AM, Rohde CA, Salkever DS, Fuddy L, et al. Evaluation of Hawaii's healthy start program. Future Child 1999;9:66–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker AJ, Piotrkowski CS, Brooks-Gunn J. The home instruction program for preschool youngsters (HIPPY). Future Child 1999;9:116–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wagner MM, Clayton SL. The parents as teachers program: Results from two demonstrations. Future Child 1999;9:91–115.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Larner M, Halpern R, Harkavy O. Fair start for children: Lessons learned from seven demonstration projects. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Olds DL, Kitzman H. Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. Future Child 1993;3:53–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pfanneenstiel J, Lambson T, Yarnell V. The parents as teachers program: Longitudinal follow-up to the second wave study. Overland Park, Kansas: Research and Training Associates, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Duggan AK, Fuddy L, Burrell L, Higman SM, McFarlane E, Windham A, et al. Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse: Impact in reducing parental risk factors. Child Abuse Negl 2004;28:in press.

  12. Scriven M. The methodology of evaluation. In: Tyler R, editor. Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967:39–83.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Korfmacher J, O'Brien R, Hiatt S, Olds DL. Differences in program implementation between nurses and paraprofessionals providing home visits during pregnancy and infancy. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1847–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Devaney B, Howell E, McCormick M, Moreno L. Reducing infant mortality: Lessons learned from Healthy Start. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jacobs F. The five-tiered approach to evaluation: Context and implementation. In: Weiss H, Jacobs F, editors. Evaluating family programs. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1988:37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1977;1:385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Husaini BA, Neff JA, Harrington JB, Hughes MD, Stone RH. Depression in rural communities: Validating the CES-D scale. J Commun Psychol 1980;8:20–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McHorney C, Ware J. Construction and validation of an alternate form general mental health scale for the medical outcomes study short-form 36-item health survey. Med Care 1995;33:15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  19. The Urban Institute. Assessing the new federalism: Snapshot of America's families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Abidin RR. Parenting stress index—Manual (PSI). Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Abidin RR. Parenting stress index: Professional manual (Third Edition). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Curcio W. The project for research on welfare, work, and domestic violence survey. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mayfield D, McLeod G, Hall P. The CAGE questionnaire: Validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument. Am J of Psychiatry 1974;131:1121–3.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson EO, van den Bree MB, Pickens RW. Indicators of genetic and environmental influence in alcohol-dependent individuals. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1996;20:67–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hebbeler KM, Gerlach-Downie S. Inside the black box of home visiting: A qualitative analysis of why intended outcomes were not achieved. Early Child Res Q 2002;17:28–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Coie J, Watt N, West J, Hawkins JD, Asarnow J, Markman H, et al. The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. Am Psychol 1993;48:1013–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kellam SG, Rebok GW. Building developmental and etiological theory through epidemiologically based preventive intervention trials. In: McCord J, Tremblay R, editors. Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence. New York: Guilford Press, 1992, pp. 162–95.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen B. Intervention and supervision in strengths-based social work practice. Fam Soc 1999;80:460–6.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hardy JB, Streett R. Family support and parenting education in the home: An effective extension of clinic-based preventive health care services for poor children. J Pediatr 1989;115:927–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson L, Kropensk V, Heinecke C, Gomby D, Halfron N. Home visiting: A service strategy to deliver Proposition 10 results. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, 2001.

  31. Barnes-Boyd C, Norr KF, Nacion KW. Promoting infant health through home visiting by a nurse-managed community worker team. Public Health Nurs 2001;18:225–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psych 1983;51:390–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by the Safe and Sound Initiative of Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins University Institutional Review Board as well as the hospital where families from one neighborhood were recruited approved the study. The authors thank the leadership and staff of the Safe and Sound Campaign, The Family League of Baltimore City, and The United Way of Central Maryland for their commitment to this evaluation. We would like to thank Michael Cenci, Martha Holleman, Constance Mercer, Elizabeth Saylor, and Barbara Squires for their review of this manuscript. We would also like to thank Ethel Robinson, Kimberly Staton, and Cleo Stewart for their work as family interviewers. Finally, we thank all BCFSS families and home visitors who participated in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Darius Tandon PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tandon, S.D., Parillo, K.M., Jenkins, C. et al. Formative Evaluation of Home Visitors' Role in Addressing Poor Mental Health, Domestic Violence, and Substance Abuse Among Low-Income Pregnant and Parenting Women. Matern Child Health J 9, 273–283 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-005-0012-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-005-0012-8

KEY WORDS:

Navigation