Screening Children for Family Violence: Review of the Evidence, Table 2

You Are Here: AHRQ Home > Clinical Information > U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) > Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2001-2004 > Screening: Family Violence, Children > Review of the Evidence

Table 2. Summary of Intervention Studies

Author, Year	Type of Study	N	Population	Age of Child When Intervention Ended (Mo)	Risk Assessment	Significant Decrease in Abuse Measures	Other Significant Effects*	Quality Rating
Olds, 1986⁵⁷ 1994⁵⁴ 1995⁵⁵ 1997⁵⁶ Eckenrode, 2000⁵⁸ Followup: 2 y 3 y 4 y 15 y	RCT	400 400 56 324	Pregnant women, first births (many teenagers, unmarried, low social class); small, semi-rural county in New York State	24	85% had 1 or more factors: <19 y, single-parent status, low income	X (p=0.07) 0 0 X	X X X X	Good
Kitzman, 1997⁶³	RCT	1,139	Pregnant, low-income, minority women, most teenagers; public obstetric clinic in Memphis	24	First birth with at least 2 factors: unmarried, 12 y of education, unemployment status	NA	X	Fair
Black, 1994⁶¹	RCT	43	Drug using pregnant women (majority single, African American, multiparus, low education, low income, history of incarceration, urban)	18	Admitted using cocaine or heroin during pregnancy	NA	X	Fair
Barth, 1991⁵⁹	RCT	191	Pregnant women in California with low income; 90% scored above the mean on Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAP)	6	Two or more positive responses to a list of criteria.	0	NA	Fair
Marcenko, 1994⁶⁰	RCT	225	Pregnant low-income minority women, Philadelphia	6	A history of at least 1 factor: substance abuse, homelessness, domestic violence, psychiatric illness, incarceration, HIV infection, lack of social support.	0	X	Fair
Brooten, 1986⁶⁴	RCT	79	Low birth weight infants	18	Weight <2200 grams.	0	X	Fair
Siegel, 1980⁶²	RCT	331	Pregnant women, mostly minority, low education, not married; North Carolina	12	None	0	0	Fair
Cerny, 2001⁶⁷	Cohort	142	Pregnant women at risk for child abuse or neglect, Tripler Army Medical Center	12	One or more positive responses to a list of criteria.	0	X	Fair-poor
Katzev, 1999⁴⁷	Cohort	6,921	First-birth pregnant women, Oregon	36	HRIS; if high score, then KFI.	X	X	Fair-poor
Brayden, 1993⁴⁸	RCT	1,082	Pregnant women, Philadelphia	24	Risk factors: frequent moves, previous removal of children by CPS, abusive behavior, and high scores on the Life Stress Scale and Nurture Scale.	X	NA	Poor
Dawson, 1989⁶⁶	Quasi-Experimental	172	Low-income pregnant women, Denver	24	None	Increased reports	NA	Poor
Flynn, 1999⁶⁸	Cohort	137	Pregnant minority women; mostly teenagers; Newark	36	Based on clinical judgement	0	X	Poor
Gray, 1979⁶⁵	RCT	150	Pregnant women; Denver	36	Based on clinical judgement	Increased reports	X	Poor
Note: Child Protective Services; HIV = human immunodeficiency virus; HRIS = Hawaii Risk Indicator Scale; KFI = Kempe Family Stress Inventory; NA = not studied; RCT = randomized controlled trial; X = significant relationship; 0 = studied but not significant. * Other outcomes include injury, poisoning, hospitalizations, child development level, and others.

Return to Document