Home visits by paraprofessionals improved maternal mental health and mother-child interaction 2 years after visits ended
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olds DL, Robinson J, Pettitt L, et al . Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2004;114:1560–8.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Two years after completion of a home visiting intervention, do the improvements in maternal and child health expected from paraprofessional (lay visitors/peer support or community workers) home visits emerge? Do the benefits attributed to home visits from professional nurses endure? ### ![Graphic][3] Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4] Allocation: concealed. ### ![Graphic][5] Blinding: blinded (data collectors). ### ![Graphic][6] Follow up period: 2 years of intervention followed up by a 2 year observational period. ### ![Graphic][7] Setting: Denver, Colorado, USA. ### ![Graphic][8] Participants: 735 pregnant women (mean age 20 y) who had no previous live births and either qualified for Medicaid or had no health insurance. ### ![Graphic][9] Intervention: Prenatal and postpartum paraprofessional home visits (PHV) (n = 245), nurse home visits (NHV) (n = 235), or a control condition (n = 255) until the child was 2 years of age. All participants received developmental screening and referral services … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.stitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.aulast%253DOlds%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%2BL.%26rft.volume%253D114%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D1560%26rft.epage%253D1568%26rft.atitle%253DEffects%2Bof%2BHome%2BVisits%2Bby%2BParaprofessionals%2Band%2Bby%2BNurses%253A%2BAge%2B4%2BFollow-Up%2BResults%2Bof%2Ba%2BRandomized%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.2004-0961%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15574615%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=114/6/1560&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F3%2F75.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".