Table 2.

Summary of Intervention Studies

Author, YearNo. and Study TypePopulationChild’s Age When Intervention Ended (Mo)Risk AssessmentSignificant Decrease in Abuse MeasuresOther Significant Effects*Quality Rating
RCT = randomized controlled trial; X = significant relationship; 0 = studied but not significant; NA = not studied; HIV = human immunodeficiency virus; HRIS = Hawaii Risk Indicator Scale; KFI = Kempe Family Stress Inventory; CPS = Child Protective Services.
*Other outcomes include injury, poisoning, hospitalizations, child development level, and others.
Olds
 198657
 199454
 199555
 199756RCTPregnant women, first births (many teenagers, unmarried, low social class) small, semirural county in New York State2485% had 1 or more factors: age <19 y, single-parent status, low incomeGood
Eckenrode, 200058 follow-up
    2 y400X (P = .07)X
    3 y4000X
    4 y560X
    15 y324XX
Kitzman, 1997631,139 RCTPregnant, low-income, minority women, most teenagers; public obstetric clinic in Memphis24First birth with at least 2 factors: unmarried, 12 y of education, unemployment statusNAXFair
Black, 19946143 RCTDrug using pregnant women (majority single, African American, multiparus, low education, low income, history of incarceration, urban)18Admitted using cocaine or heroin during pregnancyNAXFair
Barth, 199159191 RCTPregnant women in California with low income; 90% scored above mean on Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAP)6Two or more positive responses to a list of criteria0NAFair
Marcenko, 199460225 RCTPregnant low-income minority women in Philadelphia6A history of at least 1 factor: substance abuse, homelessness, domestic violence, psychiatric illness, incarceration, HIV infection, lack of social support0XFair
Brooten, 19866479 RCTLow birth weight infants18Weight <2,200 g0XFair
Siegel, 198062331 RCTPregnant women; mostly minority, low education, not married; North Carolina12None00Fair
Cerny, 200167142 CohortPregnant women at risk for child abuse or neglect; Tripler Army Medical Center12One or more positive responses to a list of criteria.0XFair-poor
Katzev, 1999476,921 CohortFirst-birth pregnant women; Oregon36HRIS, if high score, then KFIXXFair-poor
Brayden, 1993481,082 RCTPregnant women; Philadelphia24Risk factors: frequent moves, previous removal of children by CPS, abusive behavior, and high scores on the Life Stress Scale and Nurture ScaleXNAPoor
Dawson, 198966172 Quasi- experimentalLow-income pregnant women; Denver24NoneIncreased reportsNAPoor
Flynn, 199968137 CohortPregnant minority women; mostly teenagers; Newark36Based on clinical judgment0XPoor
Gray, 197965150 RCTPregnant women; Denver36Based on clinical judgmentIncreased reportsXPoor