Reviews (n=16) | Description of included interventions | Type of studies included (no) | Targeted health care providers | Outcome reported | Pooled data (Y/N) | Results | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |  |  |  | Other outcomes | MNCH specific outcomes |  |  |
Blondel 1995[29] | Two different types of home visits during pregnancy: (1) those offering social support to high-risk women; and (2) those providing medical care to women with complications. | RCT’s: 08 | Nurses, family workers, midwives in HIC |  | Preterm delivery | Yes | 1.0 (0.8-1.1) |
 |  |  |  |  | Hospital admission with complications |  | 0.9 (0.7-1.2) |
Bull 2004 (Overview)[45] | Home visiting is not a single or uniform intervention – it is a mechanism for the delivery of a variety of interventions directed at different outcomes. They may provide parent training/education, pyscho-social support to parents, infant stimulation, and infant and maternal health surveillance | Reviews: 09 | Nurses, midwives or lay people within different professional bases in HIC |  | Pregnancy outcome | No | No impact |
 |  |  |  |  | Immunization rate |  | No impact |
 |  |  |  |  | Hospital admission |  | No impact |
 |  |  |  |  | Child injury |  | Positive impact |
 |  |  |  |  | Post natal depression |  | Positive impact |
Ciliska 2001[30] | Public health nursing interventions when carried out by the strategy of home visiting of clients in the pre- and postnatal period | 20 studies RCT's: 8 CCT: 3 analytic cohort: 1 | Nurses or midwives in HIC |  | Children’s mental development, mental health and physical growth, mother’s depression, maternal employment, education, nutrition and other health habits, and government cost saving. | No | No negative impacts reported in 12 strong articles |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Children mental and physical health improved |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | No impacts on LBW, gestational age and neonatal morbidity and mortality |
Elkan 2000[31] | Home visiting program with at least one postnatal visit | 102 papers with 86 home visiting programs | Nurses or midwives in HIC | Â | Mental development score | Yes | 0.17 (0.06-0.28) |
 |  |  |  |  | Motor development score |  | 0.17(–0.03-0.38) |
 |  |  |  |  | IQ |  | 0.32 (0.146-0.48) |
 |  |  |  |  | Weight |  | 0.04 (–0.17-2.46) |
 |  |  |  |  | Height |  | 0.04 ( –0.17-2.5) |
 |  |  |  |  | Immunization rate |  | 1.40 (1.16-1.68) |
 |  |  |  |  | Use of acute care |  | 0.73 (0.55-0.98) |
 |  |  |  |  | Hospital stay |  | 1.63 (1.18-2.24) |
 |  |  |  |  | ER |  | 0.77 (0.58-1.03) |
Gogia 2010[32] | Implementation by community health workers of safe delivery practices at home and proper care of the neonate immediately after birth, such as keeping the baby warm, providing neonatal resuscitation (if required) and initiating breastfeeding early. | RCT: 05 | CHW in LIC | Â | ANC visit >1 | Yes | 1.33 (1.20-1.47) |
 |  |  |  |  | Tetanus Toxoid (2 doses) |  | 1.11 (1.04-1.18) |
 |  |  |  |  | Skilled care at birth |  | 1.54 (0.81 - 2.93) |
 |  |  |  |  | Breastfeeding within 1 hour |  | 3.35 (1.31-8.59) |
 |  |  |  |  | Clean cord care |  | 1.70 (1.39-2.07) |
 |  |  |  |  | Delayed bathing |  | 4.63 (2.29-9.37) |
 |  |  |  |  | Neonatal mortality |  | 0.62 (0.44-0.87) |
 |  |  |  |  | Infant mortality |  | 0.41 (0.30–0.57) |
 |  |  |  |  | Neonatal cause-specific mortality due to: |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  | Sepsis |  | 89.8% (78.6–101.0) |
 |  |  |  |  | Asphyxia |  | 53.3% (23.8–82.8) |
 |  |  |  |  | Prematurity |  | 38% (4.3–71.6) |
 |  |  |  |  | Hypothermia |  | 100% (one-sided 95% CI not stated) |
Gruen 2003[33] | Specialist outreach clinics: defined as planned and regular visits by specialist-trained medical practitioners from a usual practice location (hospital or specialist center) to primary care or rural hospital settings. | RCT: 05 CBA: 02 ITS: 02 | Primary healthcare practitioners and specialists | Adherence to treatment | Â | Yes | 0.63 (0.52-0.77) |
 |  |  |  | Patient and provider satisfaction |  |  | 0.43 (0.29-0.62) |
 |  |  |  | Use of service |  |  | 0.14 (0.05-0.32) |
Hodnett 2000[34] | Standardized or individualized programs of additional social support provided in either home visits, during regular antenatal clinic visits, and/or by telephone on several occasions during pregnancy. | RCT: 17 | Multidisciplinary teams of health professionals specially trained lay workers, or combination of lay and professional workers. | Â | Caesarean birth | Â | 0.87 (0.78-0.97) |
 |  |  |  |  | Gestational age less than 37 weeks at birth |  | 0.92 (0.83-1.01) |
 |  |  |  |  | Birth weight less than 2500 gm |  | 0.92 (0.83-1.03) |
 |  |  |  |  | Stillbirth/neonatal death |  | 0.96 (0.74-1.26) |
 |  |  |  |  | Antenatal hospital admission |  | 0.79 (0.68-0.92) |
 |  |  |  |  | Postnatal re-hospitalization |  | 1.60 (0.80-3.21) |
 |  |  |  |  | Antenatal depression |  | 0.77 (0.50, 1.19) |
 |  |  |  |  | Postnatal depression |  | 0.85 (0.69-1.05) |
 |  |  |  |  | Less than highly satisfied with antenatal care |  | 1.13 (0.76, 1.67) |
Hussein 2012[35] | Interventions included aimed to overcome delays in reaching the appropriate facility, which improved emergency referrals antenatally, during labour, or up to 42 d after delivery. | Total: 19 RCT: 04,controlled before after: 05,Cohort: 05 | Community groups and TBA | Â | Neonatal mortality | No | 0.48 (0.34-0.68) |
 |  |  |  |  | Stillbirths |  | 0.56 (0.32-0.96) |
Hussein 2012[36] | Refer pregnant and post-partum women suffering from an emergency obstetric complication or from home to basic-level health facilities (health centres) and from health centre to hospital (but not referral between hospitals) in LMIC | Total: 19 RCT: 04,controlled before after: 05,Cohort: 05 | Community groups and TBA | Â | Neonatal mortality | No | 0.48 (0.34-0.68) |
 |  |  |  |  | Stillbirths |  | 0.56 (0.32-0.96) |
Issel 2011[37] | Prenatal home visiting was defined as a nonmedical program or service focused on facilitating utilization of health or social services, provided in the home to pregnant women who were at high medical or social risk for adverse birth outcomes. | Total : 28 RCT: 14, descriptive: 2, retro cohort: 07, prospect cohort: 02, matched CC: 01, ecological : 01, static group: 01 | Home visiting personnel not defined | Â | PNC utilization | No | 5/5 studies found significant improvement |
 |  |  |  |  | Gestational age |  | 5/24 found a significant positive effect |
 |  |  |  |  | Birth weight |  | 7/17 found a significant positive effect |
Kandrick 2000[38] | The home visitation program had to include at least one post natal home visits | 11 RCT’s (9 meta-analyzed) | Nurses and midwives in HIC |  | Immunization uptake | Yes | 1.17 (0.33-4.17) (Random) |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1.67 (1.29-2.15) (fixed) |
Lassi 2010[39] | Intervention packages that included additional training of outreach workers in maternal care during pregnancy, delivery and in the postpartum period; and routine newborn care. | 18 cluster-randomized/quasi-randomized trials | outreach workers in LMIC | Â | Maternal mortality | Yes | 0.77 (0.59-1.02) |
 |  |  |  |  | Maternal morbidity |  | 0.75 (0.61-0.92) |
 |  |  |  |  | Neonatal mortality |  | 0.76 (0.68-0.84) |
 |  |  |  |  | Perinatal mortality |  | 0.80 (0.71-0.91) |
 |  |  |  |  | Referral |  | 1.4 (1.19-1.65) |
 |  |  |  |  | Early breast feeding |  | 1.94 (1.56-2.42) |
Lonkhuijzen 12 [44] | All types of facilities within easy reach of a medical facility that are designated for the lodging of pregnant women who await labour, with the purpose of the women being assisted by skilled attendants during delivery | None | Not applicable | Not applicable | Â | Â | Â |
McNaughton 2004[40] | Home-visiting interventions using professional nurses as home visitors. | 13 reports | Nurses in HIC | Â | Maternal newborn health status | No | Narrative (more than half of the studies were able to achieve their desired results) |
Peacock 2013[43] | Effect of paraprofessional home-visiting programs on developmental and health outcomes of young children from disadvantaged families. | 21 studies | Paraprofessional home-visiting staff | Â | Child abuse and neglect | No | 3 out of 6 studies showed better outcomes |
 |  |  |  |  | Physical growth |  | 5 out of 7 studies showed no significant improvement |
 |  |  |  |  | Hospitalization, illness and injuries |  | 2 out of 6 studies showed better health outcomes |
 |  |  |  |  | Up-to date immunizations |  | 1 study showed intervention group more likely to receive primary immunizations |
Pyone 2012[41] | Distance and transport cost related interventions | 5 studies | Community |  | MMR (associated with distance) | No | 7.4 (1.6 – 132.4) |
Vieira 2012[42] | Interventions to increase birth with skilled health personnel, in settings where TBAs were providers of childbirth care | 6 observational studies | Skilled birth attendant | Â | Obstetric mortality ratio | No | Deploying skilled health personnel and addressing financial barriers for users increased the use of skilled health personnel at birth |
 |  |  |  |  | Decrease in maternal deaths |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  | Birth by a physician |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  | Birth by C-Section |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  | Increase in skilled birth attendance |  |  |