Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP): Enhancing the Outcomes of Low Birth Weight, Premature Infants in the United States, 1985-1988 (ICPSR 9795)
Infant Health and Development Program, Phase IV, 2001-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 23580)
The Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP) was a multisite, randomized, controlled trial of an educational intervention until three years of age for low birth weight preterm infants born in 1984-1985. There were three components to the intervention: (1) an educational program delivered through home visits (weekly during the first year and every other week during the second and third years of life), (2) a daily center-based program beginning at 12 months corrected for duration of gestation, and (3) parent support groups coinciding with the start of the center-based program. Previously, the subjects were assessed at baseline up to age 3 (Phase I), age 5 (Phase II), and age 8 (Phase III). Phase IV assessed them at age 18.
This data collection contains selected variables from all four phases that were used in analyses reported in two articles by the principal investigators and others:
- McCormick, Marie C., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Stephen L. Buka, Julie Goldman, Jennifer Yu, Mikhail Salganik, David T. Scott, Forrest C. Bennett, Libby L. Kay, Judy C. Bernbaum, Charles R. Bauer, Camilia Martin, Elizabeth R. Woods, Anne Martin, and Patrick H. Casey. "Early Intervention in Low Birth Weight Premature Infants: Results at 18 Years of Age for the Infant Health and Development Program." Pediatrics 117.3 (2006): 771-780.
- Martin, Anne, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Pamela Klebanov, Stephen L. Buka, and Marie C. McCormick. "Long-term maternal effects of early childhood intervention: Findings from the Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP)." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29 (2008): 101-117.
As such, the collection comprises only some of the variables that were collected for Phase IV and the other phases.
The collection contains information about the children and their mothers/caregivers. Data on the children include treatment group, sex, birth weight group, and an index of neonatal health, plus indices of receptive vocabulary, intelligence, and adult-child activities at age 5, indices of intelligence, receptive vocabulary, reading ability, math ability, and behavioural problems and competencies at ages 8 and 18, and indices of risk behaviors, physical health, future expectations, and engagement towards school at age 18. Information about the mothers/caregivers includes maternal age and mother's race, as well as educational achievement at baseline and ages 5, 8, and 18; smoking at ages 5 and 18; measures of employment, physical health, and mental health at ages 5, 8, and 18; indices of parenting style, educational aspirations for the child, and yelling frequency at the child at ages 8 and 18; and indices of connectedness to the community and involvement with the child's school at age 18. Other variables include measures of home literacy and the presence of televisions in the household at age 5, and indices of family cohesion and conflict at ages 8 and 18.
Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation-Strong Start (MIHOPE-Strong Start), United States, 2012-2017 (ICPSR 37847)
Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation-Strong Start (MIHOPE-Strong Start) was a large-scale evaluation that rigorously tested the effectiveness of evidence-based home visiting in improving birth and health outcomes during pregnancy and in the year after birth. Local programs included in the study's analysis implemented one of two evidence-based models: Healthy Families America (HFA) or Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP). These models were chosen because earlier evaluations found some evidence of their having positive impacts on birth outcomes.
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) partnered with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to sponsor the study. MIHOPE-Strong Start was part of the CMMI's Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, which evaluated whether enhanced, nonmedical prenatal interventions, when provided in addition to routine medical care, have the potential to improve birth outcomes and reduce health care costs for women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under contract with OPRE, MDRC conducted MIHOPE-Strong Start in collaboration with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, and New York University.
The analysis for MIHOPE-Strong Start included 2,899 women and 66 local programs (37 HFA and 29 NFP programs) operating across 17 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. Women were eligible for MIHOPE-Strong Start if they were pregnant and at least 8 weeks from their due date.
The MIHOPE-Strong Start analysis included a subset of families and local programs that were recruited for MIHOPE, the national evaluation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program. Specifically, the MIHOPE-Strong Start impact analysis included information on 46 local home visiting programs and 1,845 families that were initially recruited for MIHOPE but met the MIHOPE-Strong Start eligibility criteria. An important distinction between MIHOPE-Strong Start and MIHOPE is that MIHOPE included only programs receiving MIECHV funding, while MIHOPE-Strong Start included both MIECHV and non-MIECHV-funded programs.
In both studies, families were randomly assigned either to an evidence-based home visiting program or to a control group who was given information on other services available in the community. The random assignment design was intended to create program and control groups that were similar when women entered the study, so that systematic differences in the outcomes of interest observed between the two groups can be attributed to the home visiting services rather than to the preexisting characteristics of the women.