Quality of delivery of "right@home": Implementation evaluation of an Australian sustained nurse home visiting intervention to improve parenting and the home learning environment
Home visiting programs are implemented in high income countries to improve outcomes for families with young children. Significant resources are invested in such programs and high quality evaluations are important. In the context of research trials, implementation quality is often poorly reported and...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0215371-e0215371 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0215371 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | e0215371 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Kemp, Lynn Bruce, Tracey Elcombe, Emma L Anderson, Teresa Vimpani, Graham Price, Anna Smith, Charlene Goldfeld, Sharon |
| description | Home visiting programs are implemented in high income countries to improve outcomes for families with young children. Significant resources are invested in such programs and high quality evaluations are important. In the context of research trials, implementation quality is often poorly reported and, when reported, is variable. This paper presents the quality of implementation of the right@home program, a sustained nurse home visiting intervention trialled in Australia, and delivered in a 'real world' context through usual child and family health services. right@home is structured around the core Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) program, which is a salutogenic, child focused prevention model.
At each visit right@home practitioners completed a checklist detailing the client unique identifier, date of contact and activities undertaken. These checklists were collated to provide data on intervention dose, retention to program completion at child age 2 years, and visit content, which were compared with the program schedule. Quality of family-provider relationship was measured using the Session Rating Scale. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify clusters of activities and allow qualitative assessment of concordance between program aims and program delivery.
Of 363 intervention families offered the program, 352 (97·0%) commenced the program and 304 (87·3%) completed the program to child age 2 years. 253 of 352 (71·9%) families who commenced the program received more than 75 percent of scheduled visits including at least one antenatal visit. Families rated the participant-practitioner relationship highly (mean 39.4/40). The factor analysis identified six antenatal and six postnatal components which were concordant with the program aims.
The right@home program was delivered with higher adherence to program dose, schedule and content, and retention than usually reported in other home visiting research. Program compliance may have resulted from program design (visit schedule, dose, content and delivery flexibility) that was consistent with family aims. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0215371 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2221081812</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A584560759</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_0995e58ee67f42b5b80abad93f2a0e0d</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A584560759</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c719t-a00bdb28a866cbf5354c7f7839e17023e97e75fcadeabe271f7a4c4e94c4da43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBgiiIiG42MWHeJNwgVhVHFaqVAEVt9Ykmey6cuzFdiL6WLwhTjetdlEvuElGk-__PTPxJMlzSuaU5_Tdle2dAT3fWoNzwqiIyQfJMS05my0Y4Q_34qPkifdXhAheLBaPkyNOiSgFyY6TP9960Cpcp7ZNG9RqQHcTnzq13oSPG9vh6ft01W01dmgCBGVNigPofhdGFEy67H1w0SeGPoagDDap6Z3HdHRIB-VVUGadKhPQDdFo1Aabqm7r7IDpFtyYjASYJg2bSacRnBmzaAblrBlLeJo8akF7fDa9T5LLz58uz77Ozi--rM6W57M6p2WYASFVU7ECYsd11Qousjpv84KXSHPCOJY55qKtoUGokOW0zSGrMyzjo4GMnyQvd7Zbbb2chu0lY4ySghaURWK1IxoLV3LrVAfuWlpQ8iZh3VqCC6rWKElZChQF4iJvM1aJqiBQQVPylgFB0kSvD9NpfdVhU8c-4zwPTA-_GLWRazvIhYi98LGYN5OBs7969EF2yteoNRi0_Vg3Z5SzjI6dvfoHvb-7iVpDbECZ1sZz69FULkWRiQXJRRmp-T0UjFPtVB1vZqti_kDw9kAQmYC_wxp67-Xqx_f_Zy9-HrKv99gNgg4bb3U_XjR_CGY7sHbWe4ft3ZApkeNi3U5Djoslp8WKshf7P-hOdLtJ_C9TiiMq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2221081812</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quality of delivery of "right@home": Implementation evaluation of an Australian sustained nurse home visiting intervention to improve parenting and the home learning environment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Kemp, Lynn ; Bruce, Tracey ; Elcombe, Emma L ; Anderson, Teresa ; Vimpani, Graham ; Price, Anna ; Smith, Charlene ; Goldfeld, Sharon</creator><contributor>Hill, Briony</contributor><creatorcontrib>Kemp, Lynn ; Bruce, Tracey ; Elcombe, Emma L ; Anderson, Teresa ; Vimpani, Graham ; Price, Anna ; Smith, Charlene ; Goldfeld, Sharon ; Hill, Briony</creatorcontrib><description>Home visiting programs are implemented in high income countries to improve outcomes for families with young children. Significant resources are invested in such programs and high quality evaluations are important. In the context of research trials, implementation quality is often poorly reported and, when reported, is variable. This paper presents the quality of implementation of the right@home program, a sustained nurse home visiting intervention trialled in Australia, and delivered in a 'real world' context through usual child and family health services. right@home is structured around the core Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) program, which is a salutogenic, child focused prevention model.
At each visit right@home practitioners completed a checklist detailing the client unique identifier, date of contact and activities undertaken. These checklists were collated to provide data on intervention dose, retention to program completion at child age 2 years, and visit content, which were compared with the program schedule. Quality of family-provider relationship was measured using the Session Rating Scale. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify clusters of activities and allow qualitative assessment of concordance between program aims and program delivery.
Of 363 intervention families offered the program, 352 (97·0%) commenced the program and 304 (87·3%) completed the program to child age 2 years. 253 of 352 (71·9%) families who commenced the program received more than 75 percent of scheduled visits including at least one antenatal visit. Families rated the participant-practitioner relationship highly (mean 39.4/40). The factor analysis identified six antenatal and six postnatal components which were concordant with the program aims.
The right@home program was delivered with higher adherence to program dose, schedule and content, and retention than usually reported in other home visiting research. Program compliance may have resulted from program design (visit schedule, dose, content and delivery flexibility) that was consistent with family aims.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215371</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31059504</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Australia ; Check lists ; Checklist ; Child health ; Child, Preschool ; Children ; Children & youth ; Childrens health ; Delivery scheduling ; Educational environment ; Factor analysis ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Families & family life ; Family ; Female ; Health visiting ; Home environment ; House Calls ; Humans ; Intervention ; Male ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Midwifery ; Nurse-patient relations ; Nurses ; Nursing - standards ; Nursing schools ; Parenting ; People and Places ; Population ; Practice ; Pregnancy ; Prenatal Care - standards ; Program Evaluation ; Qualitative analysis ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods ; Quality of Health Care ; Retention ; Schedules ; School environment ; Social Sciences ; Treatment outcome ; Visiting nurses ; Wellness programs ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0215371-e0215371</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Kemp et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Kemp et al 2019 Kemp et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c719t-a00bdb28a866cbf5354c7f7839e17023e97e75fcadeabe271f7a4c4e94c4da43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c719t-a00bdb28a866cbf5354c7f7839e17023e97e75fcadeabe271f7a4c4e94c4da43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0348-1837</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502332/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502332/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,2915,23847,27905,27906,53772,53774,79349,79350</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31059504$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Hill, Briony</contributor><creatorcontrib>Kemp, Lynn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruce, Tracey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elcombe, Emma L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Teresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vimpani, Graham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Charlene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldfeld, Sharon</creatorcontrib><title>Quality of delivery of "right@home": Implementation evaluation of an Australian sustained nurse home visiting intervention to improve parenting and the home learning environment</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Home visiting programs are implemented in high income countries to improve outcomes for families with young children. Significant resources are invested in such programs and high quality evaluations are important. In the context of research trials, implementation quality is often poorly reported and, when reported, is variable. This paper presents the quality of implementation of the right@home program, a sustained nurse home visiting intervention trialled in Australia, and delivered in a 'real world' context through usual child and family health services. right@home is structured around the core Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) program, which is a salutogenic, child focused prevention model.
At each visit right@home practitioners completed a checklist detailing the client unique identifier, date of contact and activities undertaken. These checklists were collated to provide data on intervention dose, retention to program completion at child age 2 years, and visit content, which were compared with the program schedule. Quality of family-provider relationship was measured using the Session Rating Scale. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify clusters of activities and allow qualitative assessment of concordance between program aims and program delivery.
Of 363 intervention families offered the program, 352 (97·0%) commenced the program and 304 (87·3%) completed the program to child age 2 years. 253 of 352 (71·9%) families who commenced the program received more than 75 percent of scheduled visits including at least one antenatal visit. Families rated the participant-practitioner relationship highly (mean 39.4/40). The factor analysis identified six antenatal and six postnatal components which were concordant with the program aims.
The right@home program was delivered with higher adherence to program dose, schedule and content, and retention than usually reported in other home visiting research. Program compliance may have resulted from program design (visit schedule, dose, content and delivery flexibility) that was consistent with family aims.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Check lists</subject><subject>Checklist</subject><subject>Child health</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Children & youth</subject><subject>Childrens health</subject><subject>Delivery scheduling</subject><subject>Educational environment</subject><subject>Factor analysis</subject><subject>Factor Analysis, Statistical</subject><subject>Families & family life</subject><subject>Family</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health visiting</subject><subject>Home environment</subject><subject>House Calls</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Midwifery</subject><subject>Nurse-patient relations</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Nursing - standards</subject><subject>Nursing schools</subject><subject>Parenting</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Prenatal Care - standards</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods</subject><subject>Quality of Health Care</subject><subject>Retention</subject><subject>Schedules</subject><subject>School environment</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Treatment outcome</subject><subject>Visiting nurses</subject><subject>Wellness programs</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBgiiIiG42MWHeJNwgVhVHFaqVAEVt9Ykmey6cuzFdiL6WLwhTjetdlEvuElGk-__PTPxJMlzSuaU5_Tdle2dAT3fWoNzwqiIyQfJMS05my0Y4Q_34qPkifdXhAheLBaPkyNOiSgFyY6TP9960Cpcp7ZNG9RqQHcTnzq13oSPG9vh6ft01W01dmgCBGVNigPofhdGFEy67H1w0SeGPoagDDap6Z3HdHRIB-VVUGadKhPQDdFo1Aabqm7r7IDpFtyYjASYJg2bSacRnBmzaAblrBlLeJo8akF7fDa9T5LLz58uz77Ozi--rM6W57M6p2WYASFVU7ECYsd11Qousjpv84KXSHPCOJY55qKtoUGokOW0zSGrMyzjo4GMnyQvd7Zbbb2chu0lY4ySghaURWK1IxoLV3LrVAfuWlpQ8iZh3VqCC6rWKElZChQF4iJvM1aJqiBQQVPylgFB0kSvD9NpfdVhU8c-4zwPTA-_GLWRazvIhYi98LGYN5OBs7969EF2yteoNRi0_Vg3Z5SzjI6dvfoHvb-7iVpDbECZ1sZz69FULkWRiQXJRRmp-T0UjFPtVB1vZqti_kDw9kAQmYC_wxp67-Xqx_f_Zy9-HrKv99gNgg4bb3U_XjR_CGY7sHbWe4ft3ZApkeNi3U5Djoslp8WKshf7P-hOdLtJ_C9TiiMq</recordid><startdate>20190506</startdate><enddate>20190506</enddate><creator>Kemp, Lynn</creator><creator>Bruce, Tracey</creator><creator>Elcombe, Emma L</creator><creator>Anderson, Teresa</creator><creator>Vimpani, Graham</creator><creator>Price, Anna</creator><creator>Smith, Charlene</creator><creator>Goldfeld, Sharon</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0348-1837</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190506</creationdate><title>Quality of delivery of "right@home": Implementation evaluation of an Australian sustained nurse home visiting intervention to improve parenting and the home learning environment</title><author>Kemp, Lynn ; Bruce, Tracey ; Elcombe, Emma L ; Anderson, Teresa ; Vimpani, Graham ; Price, Anna ; Smith, Charlene ; Goldfeld, Sharon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c719t-a00bdb28a866cbf5354c7f7839e17023e97e75fcadeabe271f7a4c4e94c4da43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Check lists</topic><topic>Checklist</topic><topic>Child health</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Children & youth</topic><topic>Childrens health</topic><topic>Delivery scheduling</topic><topic>Educational environment</topic><topic>Factor analysis</topic><topic>Factor Analysis, Statistical</topic><topic>Families & family life</topic><topic>Family</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health visiting</topic><topic>Home environment</topic><topic>House Calls</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Midwifery</topic><topic>Nurse-patient relations</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Nursing - standards</topic><topic>Nursing schools</topic><topic>Parenting</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Prenatal Care - standards</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods</topic><topic>Quality of Health Care</topic><topic>Retention</topic><topic>Schedules</topic><topic>School environment</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Treatment outcome</topic><topic>Visiting nurses</topic><topic>Wellness programs</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kemp, Lynn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruce, Tracey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elcombe, Emma L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Teresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vimpani, Graham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Charlene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldfeld, Sharon</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kemp, Lynn</au><au>Bruce, Tracey</au><au>Elcombe, Emma L</au><au>Anderson, Teresa</au><au>Vimpani, Graham</au><au>Price, Anna</au><au>Smith, Charlene</au><au>Goldfeld, Sharon</au><au>Hill, Briony</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quality of delivery of "right@home": Implementation evaluation of an Australian sustained nurse home visiting intervention to improve parenting and the home learning environment</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-05-06</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0215371</spage><epage>e0215371</epage><pages>e0215371-e0215371</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Home visiting programs are implemented in high income countries to improve outcomes for families with young children. Significant resources are invested in such programs and high quality evaluations are important. In the context of research trials, implementation quality is often poorly reported and, when reported, is variable. This paper presents the quality of implementation of the right@home program, a sustained nurse home visiting intervention trialled in Australia, and delivered in a 'real world' context through usual child and family health services. right@home is structured around the core Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) program, which is a salutogenic, child focused prevention model.
At each visit right@home practitioners completed a checklist detailing the client unique identifier, date of contact and activities undertaken. These checklists were collated to provide data on intervention dose, retention to program completion at child age 2 years, and visit content, which were compared with the program schedule. Quality of family-provider relationship was measured using the Session Rating Scale. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify clusters of activities and allow qualitative assessment of concordance between program aims and program delivery.
Of 363 intervention families offered the program, 352 (97·0%) commenced the program and 304 (87·3%) completed the program to child age 2 years. 253 of 352 (71·9%) families who commenced the program received more than 75 percent of scheduled visits including at least one antenatal visit. Families rated the participant-practitioner relationship highly (mean 39.4/40). The factor analysis identified six antenatal and six postnatal components which were concordant with the program aims.
The right@home program was delivered with higher adherence to program dose, schedule and content, and retention than usually reported in other home visiting research. Program compliance may have resulted from program design (visit schedule, dose, content and delivery flexibility) that was consistent with family aims.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31059504</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0215371</doi><tpages>e0215371</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0348-1837</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0215371-e0215371 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2221081812 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Analysis Australia Check lists Checklist Child health Child, Preschool Children Children & youth Childrens health Delivery scheduling Educational environment Factor analysis Factor Analysis, Statistical Families & family life Family Female Health visiting Home environment House Calls Humans Intervention Male Medical research Medicine and Health Sciences Midwifery Nurse-patient relations Nurses Nursing - standards Nursing schools Parenting People and Places Population Practice Pregnancy Prenatal Care - standards Program Evaluation Qualitative analysis Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods Quality of Health Care Retention Schedules School environment Social Sciences Treatment outcome Visiting nurses Wellness programs Womens health |
| title | Quality of delivery of "right@home": Implementation evaluation of an Australian sustained nurse home visiting intervention to improve parenting and the home learning environment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T04%3A35%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quality%20of%20delivery%20of%20%22right@home%22:%20Implementation%20evaluation%20of%20an%20Australian%20sustained%20nurse%20home%20visiting%20intervention%20to%20improve%20parenting%20and%20the%20home%20learning%20environment&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Kemp,%20Lynn&rft.date=2019-05-06&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0215371&rft.epage=e0215371&rft.pages=e0215371-e0215371&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0215371&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA584560759%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2221081812&rft_id=info:pmid/31059504&rft_galeid=A584560759&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_0995e58ee67f42b5b80abad93f2a0e0d&rfr_iscdi=true |