Randomized Controlled Trial of a Paraprofessional-Delivered In-Home Intervention for Young Reservation-Based American Indian Mothers

Walkup, John T.; Barlow, Allison; Mullany, Britta; Pan, William; Goklish, Novalene; Hasting, Ranelda; Cowboy, Brandii; Fields, Pauline; Baker, Elena Varipatis; Speakman, Kristen; Ginsburg, Golda S.; Reid, Raymond

doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e3181a0ab86

Cited by 98 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…l educational (n = 5) [188][189][190]192,271 l social support (n = 5) 149,[201][202][203][204] l pharmacological agents or supplements (n = 1) 213 l midwifery-led interventions (n = 3) [221][222][223] l organisation of maternity care (n = 0) l CAM or other (n = 0).…”

Section: Summary Of Results From Network Meta-analysis For Universal mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of five included trials of a selective preventive intervention evaluating an educational intervention, [188][189][190]192,271 two were conducted in the UK. 188,191 Two main types of interventions were identified: education on preparing for parenting 188,189,192,271 and a booklet on PND and social worker telephone call.…”

Section: Selective Preventive Interventions: Educational Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…l 37 trials reporting a universal preventive intervention 61,123,129,146,147,150,[153][154][155][156][157][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][197][198][199][200][207][208][209][210][211][212][217][218][219][220][225][226][227][228] l 20 trials reporting a selective preventive intervention 149,[158][159][160][161][162][163][188][189][190][191][192][201]…”

Section: Level Of Preventive Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…psychological (n = 30) 61,121,148, 2. educational (n = 17) [180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196] 3. social support (n = 11) 149,[197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206] 4. pharmacological agents or supplements (n = 10) [207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216] 5. midwifery-led interventions (n = 9)…”

Section: Intervention Classmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, 15 of the included RCTs were undertaken in the UK, 61,146,149,150,174,177,188,191,[199][200][201]206,213,219,224 31 in the USA, 121,160,161,163,[166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][178][179][180][181]187,190,192,197,198,202,208,210,212,[214][215][216]222,227,229 18 in Australia, 123,147,159,1...…”

Section: Level Of Preventive Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

Morrell

Sutcliffe

Booth

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

101

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression C Jane Morrell, 1 * Paul Sutcliffe, 2 Andrew Booth, 3 John Stevens, 3 This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 11/95/03. The contractual start date was in November 2012. The draft report began editorial review in August 2014 and was accepted for publication in June 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department ...

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Results From Network Meta-analysis For Universal mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Selective Preventive Interventions: Educational Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Level Of Preventive Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention Classmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Level Of Preventive Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

Morrell

Sutcliffe

Booth

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

101

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Interventions to Prevent Illicit and Nonmedical Drug Use in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults

O’Connor

Thomas

Senger

et al. 2020

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Illicit and nonmedical (use in ways other than instructed) drug use is common in adolescents and young adults and increases the risk of harmful outcomes such as injuries, violence, and poorer academic performance.OBJECTIVE To review the benefits and harms of interventions to prevent illicit and nonmedical drug use in children, adolescents, and young adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

show abstract

Primary Care–Based Interventions to Prevent Illicit Drug Use in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults

Krist

Davidson

Mangione

et al. 2020

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2017, an estimated 7.9% of persons aged 12 to 17 years reported illicit drug use in the past month, 1 and an estimated 50% of adolescents in the US had used an illicit drug by the time they graduated from high school. 2 Young adults aged 18 to 25 years have a higher rate of current illicit drug use, with an estimated 23.2% currently using illicit drugs. Similar to adolescents, the illicit drugs most commonly used by young adults are marijuana (20.8%) and prescription psychotherapeutics (4.6%). 1 Illicit drug use is associated with many negative health, social, and economic consequences and is a significant contributor to 3 of the leading causes of death among young persons (aged 10 to 24 years): unintentional injuries including motor vehicle crashes, suicide, and homicide. 3 IMPORTANCE In 2017, an estimated 7.9% of persons aged 12 to 17 years reported illicit drug use in the past month, and an estimated 50% of adolescents in the US had used an illicit drug by the time they graduated from high school. Young adults aged 18 to 25 years have a higher rate of current illicit drug use, with an estimated 23.2% currently using illicit drugs. Illicit drug use is associated with many negative health, social, and economic consequences and is a significant contributor to 3 of the leading causes of death among young persons (aged 10-24 years): unintentional injuries including motor vehicle crashes, suicide, and homicide.OBJECTIVE To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the potential benefits and harms of interventions to prevent illicit drug use in children, adolescents, and young adults.POPULATION This recommendation applies to children (11 years and younger), adolescents (aged 12-17 years), and young adults (aged 18-25 years), including pregnant persons.EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Because of limited and inadequate evidence, the USPSTF concludes that the benefits and harms of primary care-based interventions to prevent illicit drug use in children, adolescents, and young adults are uncertain and that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms. More research is needed.RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of primary care-based behavioral counseling interventions to prevent illicit drug use, including nonmedical use of prescription drugs, in children, adolescents, and young adults. (I statement)

show abstract

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Paraprofessional-Delivered In-Home Intervention for Young Reservation-Based American Indian Mothers

Abstract: This study supports the efficacy of the paraprofessional-delivered Family Spirit home-visiting intervention for young AI mothers on maternal knowledge and infant behavior outcomes. A longer, larger study is needed to replicate results and evaluate the durability of child behavior outcomes.

Cited by 98 publications

References 29 publications

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

Interventions to Prevent Illicit and Nonmedical Drug Use in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults

Primary Care–Based Interventions to Prevent Illicit Drug Use in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About