Video Abstract

Video Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Given earlier effects found in randomized clinical trials of the Nurse-Family Partnership, we examined whether this program would improve 18-year-old first-born youths' cognition, academic achievement, and behavior and whether effects on cognitive-related outcomes would be greater for youth born to mothers with limited psychological resources (LPR) and on arrests and convictions among females.

METHODS:

We enrolled 742 pregnant, low-income women with no previous live births and randomly assigned them to receive either free transportation for prenatal care plus child development screening and referral (control; n = 514) or prenatal and infant home nurse visit (NV) plus transportation and screening (n = 228). Assessments were completed on 629 18-year-old first-born offspring to evaluate these primary outcomes: (1) cognitive-related abilities (nonverbal intelligence, receptive language, and math achievement) and (2) behavioral health (internalizing behavioral problems, substance use and abuse, sexually transmitted infections, HIV risk, arrests, convictions, and gang membership).

RESULTS:

Compared with control-group counterparts, NV youth born to mothers with LPR had better receptive language (effect size = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00 to 0.47; P = .05), math achievement (effect size = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.61; P = .002), and a number of secondary cognitive-related outcomes. NV females, as a trend, had fewer convictions (incidence ratio = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.11; P = .08). There were no intervention effects on other behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS:

The program improved the cognitive-related skills of 18-year-olds born to mothers with LPR and, as a trend, reduced female convictions but produced no other effects on youth behavioral health.

What’s Known on This Subject:

Two randomized trials of prenatal and infant home visit by nurses found effects on children’s behavioral problems, early adolescent substance use, and among children born to mothers with limited psychological resources, cognitive outcomes. One trial found fewer convictions among females.

What This Study Adds:

This trial extends earlier estimates of intervention impact: compared with control-group counterparts, nurse-visited 18-year-olds born to mothers with limited psychological resources exhibited better cognitive functioning; females, as a trend, had fewer convictions. There were no significant effects on behavioral health.

The potential of early intervention to improve the lives of children born into disadvantaged families has gained considerable attention.1,2  Pregnancy and the early years of life are opportune times to intervene because of significant neuroendocrine changes in mothers, developing fetuses, and young children.3,4  Prenatal and early childhood exposures to toxicants, maltreatment, and stress are thought to amplify one another over time, contributing to compromised life-course development and making this an opportune time to intervene to improve vulnerable children’s development.5  Our team has been conducting a series of pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of a program of prenatal, infant, and toddler home visiting by nurses for low-income mothers and their children known as the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP).620  The current study assesses 629 primarily African American first-born 18-year-old youth whose mothers participated in the second RCT of NFP in Memphis, Tennessee.1117 

Findings from the current trial1116  and NFP trials conducted earlier in Elmira, New York,610  and later in Denver, Colorado,1820  led us to hypothesize that NFP would improve 18-year-old youth language, cognition, and math achievement and that effects in this broad domain would be most pronounced for youth born to mothers with limited psychological resources (LPR) to cope with adversity: in the lower half of the distribution on an index composed of maternal intellectual functioning,21  mental health,22  and sense of mastery23  plus self-efficacy (mothers’ beliefs about the importance of and her confidence in accomplishing key NFP behavioral objectives)24  measured at baseline.11 

Given NFP effects on substance use and antisocial behavior through age 15 among youth born to disadvantaged mothers in the Elmira trial9  and substance-use and internalizing disorders in the current trial at age 12,15  we hypothesized that the program would reduce 18-year-olds’ internalizing disorders, substance use, and abuse disorders. In light of intervention effects on the number of lifetime sex partners through age 15 among youth born to disadvantaged mothers in Elmira9  and anticipated effects on substance abuse disorders in the current trial, we hypothesized that nurse visited (NV) 18-year-olds would have fewer pregnancies and births and a lower risk for HIV. Given NFP effects on arrests, convictions, and violations of probation among 15-year-olds born to disadvantaged mothers in the Elmira trial9  and substance use at age 12 in the current trial,15  we hypothesized that the program would reduce rates of gang membership, arrests, and convictions among 18-year-olds.

Before analysis of intervention-control differences, we found that program effects on arrests and convictions in Elmira were limited to females through age 19,10  leading us to hypothesize the presence of corresponding female effects in Memphis. Also, given the presence of little meaningful variation in neighborhood disadvantage (2.4 SDs above the national mean25 ), we eliminated, before analysis of intervention effects, a hypothesis that program effects would be greater among youth whose mothers lived in the most distressed neighborhoods at registration.

The basic features of this study have been reported earlier.11  We conducted this RCT in a public system of obstetric and pediatric care in Memphis, Tennessee, with registration of the original sample completed between June 1990 and August 1991. Given that program effects were more pronounced for mothers and children from more disadvantaged families in the preceding trial,610  we focused sampling in Memphis on those with overlapping sociodemographic risks. We enrolled women <29 weeks’ gestation with no previous live births and at least 2 sociodemographic risks (unmarried, <12 years of education, or unemployed). Ninety-two percent of the women were African American, and at enrollment, 98% were unmarried, 64% were <18 years of age, and 85% were from households with incomes below the federal poverty guidelines. For the current follow-up, participating mothers, other caregivers, and youth completed informed consent procedures approved by the University of Rochester Institutional Review Board.

Table 1 summarizes the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials information. Eighty-eight percent (n = 1138) of 1289 eligible pregnant women who were offered participation completed informed consent and were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment conditions following a procedure that concealed assignment from individuals involved in gathering participant data.11  We assigned 742 participants to 2 treatment conditions created to estimate program effects on postnatal outcomes: 514 to Treatment 2 (control) and 228 to Treatment 4 (NV), both described below. Sample size and assignment ratios were derived from statistical power calculations in the original phase of the trial.11 Table 1 shows those lost to follow-up because of miscarriage or child death, maternal or child refusal to participate at earlier phases, and the number evaluated with youth assessments and maternal and/or other-custodian interviews at youth age 18.

TABLE 1

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Information for Youth Enrolled in the Trial Through 18-Year Follow-up

Treatment Group AssignmentT1aT2bT3cT4dTotal (T2 + T4)
No. allocated to each treatment 166 514e 230 228 742 
Miscarriages 19 27 
Stillbirths 
Child death before age 18 — 10 — 12 
Mother declined participation after randomly assigned — 14 — 11 25 
Child declined participation before age 18 — — 
Available for 18-y follow-upf — 465 — 205 670 
 Completed age-18 youth assessmentg — 435 — 194 629 
 Completed maternal and/or other-custodian interview for youth arrestsh — 429 — 192 621 
 Completed maternal or other-custodian interview for CBCL externalizing and total behavior problemsi — 428 — 187 615 
 Completed maternal or other-custodian interview for SSI (disability) — 429 — 190 619 
 Collected youth urinej — 419 — 187 606 
 Completed review of high school graduation records — 431 — 188 619 
Treatment Group AssignmentT1aT2bT3cT4dTotal (T2 + T4)
No. allocated to each treatment 166 514e 230 228 742 
Miscarriages 19 27 
Stillbirths 
Child death before age 18 — 10 — 12 
Mother declined participation after randomly assigned — 14 — 11 25 
Child declined participation before age 18 — — 
Available for 18-y follow-upf — 465 — 205 670 
 Completed age-18 youth assessmentg — 435 — 194 629 
 Completed maternal and/or other-custodian interview for youth arrestsh — 429 — 192 621 
 Completed maternal or other-custodian interview for CBCL externalizing and total behavior problemsi — 428 — 187 615 
 Completed maternal or other-custodian interview for SSI (disability) — 429 — 190 619 
 Collected youth urinej — 419 — 187 606 
 Completed review of high school graduation records — 431 — 188 619 

There were 1290 subjects eligible to participate; 151 declined participation, and 1138 were randomly assigned. CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; —, not applicable.

a

Treatment 1: prenatal transportation.

b

Treatment 2: prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral.

c

Treatment 3: prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral and prenatal nurse home visits.

d

Treatment 4: prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral and prenatal and infant and/or toddler nurse home visits.

e

Note that 1 mother was enrolled and randomly assigned twice by mistake after a miscarriage. We included her only once, with her original assignment, in the control group.

f

Some outcomes reported in Tables 4 and 5 show higher numbers than indicated in this table because they include repeated estimates of outcomes from earlier phases of follow-up, as indicated by “all” under “age at assessment” in those tables.

g

Some youth were unable or unwilling to complete the standardized psychological or achievement assessments or to provide urine to screen for STIs or substances, reducing the numbers shown in Tables 4 and 5.

h

Youth arrests were derived from a detailed examination of self-report, maternal, and other-caregiver report, synthesizing data from all 3 data sources (when available); this shows the number of cases for which data were gathered from maternal and/or other-caregiver report. Estimates of arrest-related outcomes were made even if maternal and other-caregiver reports were unavailable.

i

Youth CBCL externalizing and total behavioral problems (borderline or clinical) were derived from a combination of youth self-report and either maternal or other-caregiver report. Maternal report was given priority over other-caregiver report.

j

Some youth were unable or refused to provide urine for substance-use or STI screening. One sample was unusable for STI screening.

Interviews for this follow-up were conducted between October 2008 and September 2014, and reviews of school records were conducted by December 2015 by staff masked to treatment assignment. Most assessments were conducted after youth 18th birthdays (mean age 18.67 years; SD = 0.95; range: 17.5–23.9). Repeated measures of some outcomes over time increased the numbers and are noted by “all” under the column "Child Age ge at Assessment” in Tables 3 and 4.

Interviews were completed with 629 of the 669 available youth. Interviews were conducted with mothers and other caregivers to augment youth report of arrest outcomes (n = 621) and externalizing and total behavior problems (n = 615) and to determine Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) for disability (n = 619). High school graduation records were collected for 619 youth, and urine was collected for 606 youth.

Women in the control group (n = 514) were provided with free transportation for scheduled prenatal care plus developmental screening and referral for children at 6, 12, and 24 months of age. Women in the NV condition (n = 228) were provided with the same services as the control group plus prenatal and infancy home visitation through age 2.

NFP was designed to (1) improve pregnancy outcomes by promoting women’s prenatal health behaviors, (2) improve children’s health and development by promoting parents’ care of their children, and (3) enhance parents’ health and life course by encouraging women to plan the timing of subsequent pregnancies, complete their educations, and find work. Nurses linked families with needed services and, when possible, involved other family members (especially children’s fathers and grandmothers).5  Program protocols were grounded in developmental epidemiology and theories of human attachment, human ecology, and self-efficacy and adjusted to families’ individual needs.5 

The program was implemented by the Memphis and Shelby County Health Department during a nursing shortage, leading to nurse turnover for 37% of the families.11  Nurses carried a maximum caseload of 25 families each and relied on detailed visit-by-visit guidelines structured around 62 home visits. It is impossible for nurses to complete 62 visits for all families, and most families do not need this level of service. Nurses used their clinical judgment to adjust dosage and visit content, as well as telephone communications when in-person visits were not possible, to address individual needs revealed in the conduct of visits.

All families were scheduled to receive 4 weekly visits at the beginning of the program to facilitate nurses’ and mothers’ getting to know one another as early in the pregnancy as possible and to develop a trusting relationship founded on nurses’ understanding of mothers’ aspirations and concerns about their prenatal health, the developing fetus, birth, and the challenges of caring for a newborn. Newborn health and mother’s adjustment to caregiving were critical factors in nurses’ decisions about visit dose and content. Nurses recorded features of program implementation on every attempted and completed visit.5,26,27 

Overall, nurses completed a mean of 7 home visits during pregnancy and 26 visits during the first 2 years postpartum.11,27  Mothers in the lowest quartile of psychological resources (PR) at baseline received the highest number of home visits (mean = 37.67; SE = 2.38), those in the middle 2 quartiles had the fewest (mean = 32.02; SE = 1.68), and those in the highest quartile of PR received an intermediate number of visits (mean = 34.26; SE = 2.38).

Table 2 shows that outcomes were divided into 2 broad categories: (1) cognitive-related outcomes (nonverbal intelligence, language, math achievement, sustained attention, working memory, emotion recognition, risky decision-making, SSI for disability, high school graduation, and graduation with honors) and (2) behavioral health (mental health [internalizing, externalizing, and total behavioral problems], substance use and abuse, sexually transmitted infections [STIs], HIV risk, arrests and convictions, and gang membership). Within these broad categories, we separated primary from secondary outcomes. Table 2 shows the specific measures used and bases for hypotheses. Primary outcomes were predicted from previous intervention effects on the same measures or constructs in earlier phases of the current trial or other NFP trials and, for some outcomes, from effects found at earlier phases. Secondary outcomes were selected on the basis of their epidemiological and theoretical associations with earlier effects in the Elmira, Memphis, or Denver trials.59,1116,1820  We included 2 exploratory outcomes: high school graduation with honors and mother and/or caregiver report of youth receipt of SSI for disability.

TABLE 2

Outcome Domains, Variables Measured, and Bases for Hypotheses

Outcome Domains and Variables MeasuredBasis for Hypothesesa
Earlier Effect in Current TrialEffect in Other TrialPredicted From Earlier Phases or TrialsConditional Effect
Primary cognitive-related outcomes     
 Nonverbal intelligenceb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2, matrices subtest28 ,d X13  — — — 
 Receptive languageb — X1820  X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III30  X13  — — — 
 Math achievementb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Peabody Individual Achievement Test, math subtest31  X13,15  — — — 
Secondary cognitive-related outcomes     
 Sustained attentionb — X19,20  X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Leiter-R sustained attention test32  — — — — 
 Verbal Working Memory Indexb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  WAIS No. recall sequences33  — — — — 
 Emotion recognitionb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Facial Emotion Recognition Task, No. correct34  — — — — 
 Risky decision-makingb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Cambridge Decision-Making Test35  — — — — 
 High school graduation, %b — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Administrative records and self-report — — — — 
Exploratory cognitive-related outcomes     
 High school graduation with honorsb,e, % — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Administrative records — — — — 
 SSI: disabilityb,f — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Maternal and/or caregiver report of enrollment — — — — 
Primary behavioral health outcomes     
 Internalizing behavioral problems (borderline or clinical)b — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Youth self-report ages 11–18: Achenbach system36  X15  — — — 
 Current substance useb X15  X9  X59,1116,1820  — 
  Drug Use Screening Inventory (adolescent version)37  plus urine screens for cotinine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, cocaine, amphetamines, tetrahydrocannabinol, opiates, and barbiturates (coded yes or no) — — — — 
 Substance-use disorderb — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  CIDI-SAM38  — — — — 
 STIsb — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Neisseria gonorrheae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Trichomonas vaginalis3941  — — — — 
 HIV riskb — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Risky sexual behaviors, STIs, and pregnancies42  — — — — 
 Arrests and convictionsb — X9,10  X516,1820  Females 
  Counts of self- and maternal and/or caregiver-reported arrests and convictions before age 18 for all offenses and interpersonal violence — — — — 
 Gang membershipb — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Self-report — — — — 
Secondary behavioral health outcomes     
 Externalizing and total behavioral problems (borderline or clinical)b X13  — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Achenbach assessment36 : self- and maternal and/or caregiver report both crossing the borderline or clinical threshold — X20  — — 
Outcome Domains and Variables MeasuredBasis for Hypothesesa
Earlier Effect in Current TrialEffect in Other TrialPredicted From Earlier Phases or TrialsConditional Effect
Primary cognitive-related outcomes     
 Nonverbal intelligenceb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2, matrices subtest28 ,d X13  — — — 
 Receptive languageb — X1820  X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III30  X13  — — — 
 Math achievementb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Peabody Individual Achievement Test, math subtest31  X13,15  — — — 
Secondary cognitive-related outcomes     
 Sustained attentionb — X19,20  X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Leiter-R sustained attention test32  — — — — 
 Verbal Working Memory Indexb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  WAIS No. recall sequences33  — — — — 
 Emotion recognitionb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Facial Emotion Recognition Task, No. correct34  — — — — 
 Risky decision-makingb — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Cambridge Decision-Making Test35  — — — — 
 High school graduation, %b — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Administrative records and self-report — — — — 
Exploratory cognitive-related outcomes     
 High school graduation with honorsb,e, % — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Administrative records — — — — 
 SSI: disabilityb,f — — X59,1116,1820  LPRc 
  Maternal and/or caregiver report of enrollment — — — — 
Primary behavioral health outcomes     
 Internalizing behavioral problems (borderline or clinical)b — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Youth self-report ages 11–18: Achenbach system36  X15  — — — 
 Current substance useb X15  X9  X59,1116,1820  — 
  Drug Use Screening Inventory (adolescent version)37  plus urine screens for cotinine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, cocaine, amphetamines, tetrahydrocannabinol, opiates, and barbiturates (coded yes or no) — — — — 
 Substance-use disorderb — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  CIDI-SAM38  — — — — 
 STIsb — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Neisseria gonorrheae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Trichomonas vaginalis3941  — — — — 
 HIV riskb — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Risky sexual behaviors, STIs, and pregnancies42  — — — — 
 Arrests and convictionsb — X9,10  X516,1820  Females 
  Counts of self- and maternal and/or caregiver-reported arrests and convictions before age 18 for all offenses and interpersonal violence — — — — 
 Gang membershipb — — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Self-report — — — — 
Secondary behavioral health outcomes     
 Externalizing and total behavioral problems (borderline or clinical)b X13  — X59,1116,1820  — 
  Achenbach assessment36 : self- and maternal and/or caregiver report both crossing the borderline or clinical threshold — X20  — — 

CIDI-SAM, Composite International Disease Interview–Substance Abuse Model; WAIS, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; —, not applicable.

a

We show the bases for hypotheses in 3 categories: (1) an earlier effect on the same specific measure or construct in an earlier phase of the trial, (2) an effect on the same measure or construct in other trials, and (3) effects in earlier phases or trials that predict the current outcomes on theoretical or epidemiological grounds. When the prediction was made from the same measure, the basis for the hypothesis is shown on the same row; otherwise, it is shown on the construct row. Note that those outcomes hypothesized to be greater for particular subgroups are shown in the last column.

b

Outcome domain. Specific variables assessed are shown under each outcome domain. Outcomes were selected on the basis of their being affected in earlier phases of this trial or the preceding trial or on theoretical and epidemiological grounds, with attention paid to those aspects of functioning that are of clinical or public health importance and that could be assessed without overburdening respondents.

c

Subgroup defined by youths' mothers at registration11  falling into the lower half of the distribution of an index composed of the average z scores of women’s intellectual functioning,21  mental health,22  and sense of mastery23  plus self-efficacy (based on mothers’ confidence in their ability to accomplish key NFP behavioral objectives).24 

d

The intervention effect on nonverbal intelligence at age 6 was a trend overall and for the LPR group, derived from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite.29  The analysis of the whole-scale Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite was significantly different for the treatment-control contrast, both overall and for the LPR group at age 6.13  The nonverbal subscale trend was not reported in the earlier publication.13  The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2 administered at age 18 is a shortened version of intellectual functioning based on the full-scale Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children.

e

Exploratory outcome. Graduating with honors was not part of the original measurement design per se. The original plan called for gathering school records of grade point averages and disciplinary records, which were incomplete, leading us to eliminate them as part of the final measurement design. We discovered, however, that states sent information on graduation with honors, which aligns with the original measurement design and thus is included in this report. Note that all states to where participants moved record graduating with honors, with the exception of Mississippi. Seventeen participants graduated from Mississippi schools (10 control; 7 NV); they are included in the analysis as not having graduated with honors.

f

Exploratory outcome. SSI (disability) was based on parent and/or caregiver report and not included in the original measurement design. The question is relevant to this report and thus is included here.

Data analyses are reported on all cases randomized insofar as outcome data were available. The analysis adhered to a statistical analysis plan established before examination of data from the intervention group.

The primary statistical model for cognitive-related outcomes consisted of a 2-level treatment factor (control versus NV) and a 2-level factor reflecting mothers’ PR (above versus below the sample median), focusing on treatment differences for the LPR group, in models that included 3 covariates (household poverty index, maternal attitudes predictive of child abuse [CAA],43  and youth sex). The first 2 covariates, consistent predictors of a range of outcomes, adjusted for treatment nonequivalence at registration; the third was added because of its strong relationship with some outcomes. The household poverty index incorporates 3 variables: discretionary household income, housing density, and head-of-household employment. For emotion-recognition analyses, we added age-18 nonverbal intelligence to the model to reduce the likelihood that intervention effects would simply reflect differences in intelligence.

For arrest and conviction outcomes, we examined NV-control differences in a model that included sex as a classification factor, examining treatment differences separately for females and males, in models that included 3 covariates: maternal PR, household poverty, and CAA.43 

Given that rates of pregnancies, births, and STI outcomes were operationalized differently for males and females, we examined NV-control differences separately for males and females and included 3 covariates: maternal PR, household poverty, and CAA.43 

For analysis of HIV risk, we examined NV-control differences in a model that included covariates for maternal PR, youth sex, youth age at assessment, household poverty, and CAA.43 

For all remaining behavioral health outcomes, we examined NV-control differences in models that included covariates for maternal PR, youth sex, household poverty, and CAA.43 

For continuous and dichotomous outcomes on which we had repeated assessments for each child over time, we analyzed outcomes using generalized mixed models that included, in addition to variables from the primary model, children as levels of a random factor, a fixed repeated-measures classification factor for time of assessment, and all interactions of time with the other fixed classification factors.

Continuous dependent variables were analyzed in the general linear model, and dichotomous outcomes were analyzed in the logistic linear model. For low-frequency count outcomes, we analyzed data in generalized linear models with negative binomial error assumptions. We examined low-frequency outcomes with rerandomization tests to determine model fit44  and truncated 1 outlier for the count-of-convictions outcome. Substance-use disorders and timing to first pregnancy and birth were analyzed over time by using Cox proportional-hazards models. We present survival rates at age 18 along with hazard ratios.

Supplemental Tables 6 and 7 show estimates of NV-control differences without covariate adjustments.

The NV and control groups were similar on background characteristics for participants for whom 18-year follow-up assessments were conducted (Table 3), with these exceptions: at intake, NV women, compared with controls, lived in households with less discretionary income, higher person-per-room density, higher scores on a household poverty index, and higher scores on CAA.43 

TABLE 3

Background Characteristics at Randomization of Those Participants for Whom 18-Year Assessments Were Completed

VariableGroupControl, T2NV, T4
NResultNResult
Male sex, % Whole 435 48.3 194 49.0 
 LPRa 230 43.9 108 51.9 
Mother married, % Whole 435 1.8 194 1.0 
 LPRa 230 1.3 108 1.9 
Maternal race: African American, % Whole 435 93.6 194 90.7 
 LPRa 230 95.2 108 90.7 
Head of household employed, % Whole 434 56.5 193 49.2 
 LPRa 229 52.4 107 48.6 
Drank alcohol in last 14 d, % Whole 434 4.4 194 5.2 
 LPRa 229 5.7 108 7.4 
Smoked cigarettes in last 3 d, % Whole 434 8.5 194 10.8 
 LPRa 229 7.9 108 13.0 
Used marijuana in last 14 d, % Whole 434 1.6 194 1.0 
 LPRa 229 1.7 108 1.9 
Any sexually transmitted disease before random assignment, % Whole 432 33.3 194 37.6 
 LPRa 227 33.0 108 38.9 
Maternal age, y, mean (SD) Whole 435 18.10 (3.20) 194 18.08 (3.32) 
 LPRa 230 18.13 (3.31) 108 18.30 (3.85) 
Gestational age, wk, mean (SD) Whole 435 16.56 (5.74) 194 16.72 (5.71) 
 LPRa 230 16.39 (5.79) 108 16.68 (5.63) 
PR index,b,c y, mean (SD) Whole 434 99.87 (9.92) 194 99.36 (10.69) 
 LPRa 229 92.34 (5.80) 108 91.85 (6.71) 
Highest grade completed: mother, y, mean (SD) Whole 435 10.26 (1.88) 194 10.08 (2.04) 
 LPRa 230 9.93 (1.94) 108 9.62 (2.06) 
Discretionary annual household income (per $1000),d y, mean (SD) Whole 435 1.57 (6.99) 194 −0.18 (6.45) 
 LPRa 230 −0.19 (6.50) 108 −1.07 (6.16) 
% of census tract below poverty, y, mean (SD) Whole 435 34.85 (21.34) 194 35.30 (20.48) 
 LPRa 230 36.40 (21.08) 108 34.49 (21.31) 
Housing density,e y, mean (SD) Whole 435 0.95 (0.50) 194 1.04 (0.57) 
 LPRa 230 1.04 (0.53) 108 1.12 (0.52) 
Conflict with mother,f y, mean (SD) Whole 434 3.99 (0.90) 194 4.03 (0.74) 
 LPRa 229 4.15 (1.09) 108 4.09 (0.80) 
Conflict with partnerf Whole 434 3.97 (0.83) 194 4.07 (0.83) 
 LPRa 229 4.08 (0.96) 108 4.21 (0.96) 
Attitudes toward child-rearing predictive of CA,g y, mean (SD) Whole 435 99.88 (7.64) 194 101.08 (8.48) 
 LPRa 230 102.33 (7.06) 108 103.34 (7.70) 
Household poverty index,c,h y, mean (SD) Whole 435 99.63 (10.16) 194 102.19 (9.91) 
 LPRa 230 101.94 (10.09) 108 103.72 (9.82) 
Neighborhood disadvantage index,i y, mean (SD) Whole 435 2.33 (1.64) 194 2.38 (1.82) 
 LPRa 230 2.50 (1.60) 108 2.24 (1.72) 
VariableGroupControl, T2NV, T4
NResultNResult
Male sex, % Whole 435 48.3 194 49.0 
 LPRa 230 43.9 108 51.9 
Mother married, % Whole 435 1.8 194 1.0 
 LPRa 230 1.3 108 1.9 
Maternal race: African American, % Whole 435 93.6 194 90.7 
 LPRa 230 95.2 108 90.7 
Head of household employed, % Whole 434 56.5 193 49.2 
 LPRa 229 52.4 107 48.6 
Drank alcohol in last 14 d, % Whole 434 4.4 194 5.2 
 LPRa 229 5.7 108 7.4 
Smoked cigarettes in last 3 d, % Whole 434 8.5 194 10.8 
 LPRa 229 7.9 108 13.0 
Used marijuana in last 14 d, % Whole 434 1.6 194 1.0 
 LPRa 229 1.7 108 1.9 
Any sexually transmitted disease before random assignment, % Whole 432 33.3 194 37.6 
 LPRa 227 33.0 108 38.9 
Maternal age, y, mean (SD) Whole 435 18.10 (3.20) 194 18.08 (3.32) 
 LPRa 230 18.13 (3.31) 108 18.30 (3.85) 
Gestational age, wk, mean (SD) Whole 435 16.56 (5.74) 194 16.72 (5.71) 
 LPRa 230 16.39 (5.79) 108 16.68 (5.63) 
PR index,b,c y, mean (SD) Whole 434 99.87 (9.92) 194 99.36 (10.69) 
 LPRa 229 92.34 (5.80) 108 91.85 (6.71) 
Highest grade completed: mother, y, mean (SD) Whole 435 10.26 (1.88) 194 10.08 (2.04) 
 LPRa 230 9.93 (1.94) 108 9.62 (2.06) 
Discretionary annual household income (per $1000),d y, mean (SD) Whole 435 1.57 (6.99) 194 −0.18 (6.45) 
 LPRa 230 −0.19 (6.50) 108 −1.07 (6.16) 
% of census tract below poverty, y, mean (SD) Whole 435 34.85 (21.34) 194 35.30 (20.48) 
 LPRa 230 36.40 (21.08) 108 34.49 (21.31) 
Housing density,e y, mean (SD) Whole 435 0.95 (0.50) 194 1.04 (0.57) 
 LPRa 230 1.04 (0.53) 108 1.12 (0.52) 
Conflict with mother,f y, mean (SD) Whole 434 3.99 (0.90) 194 4.03 (0.74) 
 LPRa 229 4.15 (1.09) 108 4.09 (0.80) 
Conflict with partnerf Whole 434 3.97 (0.83) 194 4.07 (0.83) 
 LPRa 229 4.08 (0.96) 108 4.21 (0.96) 
Attitudes toward child-rearing predictive of CA,g y, mean (SD) Whole 435 99.88 (7.64) 194 101.08 (8.48) 
 LPRa 230 102.33 (7.06) 108 103.34 (7.70) 
Household poverty index,c,h y, mean (SD) Whole 435 99.63 (10.16) 194 102.19 (9.91) 
 LPRa 230 101.94 (10.09) 108 103.72 (9.82) 
Neighborhood disadvantage index,i y, mean (SD) Whole 435 2.33 (1.64) 194 2.38 (1.82) 
 LPRa 230 2.50 (1.60) 108 2.24 (1.72) 

T2, prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral.; T4, prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral and prenatal and infant and/or toddler nurse home visits.

a

Subgroup defined by youths' mothers falling into the lower half of the distribution for PR (LPR) described in the following footnote.

b

Average z scores of women’s intellectual functioning,21  mental health,22  and sense of mastery23  plus self-efficacy24  (mastery and self-efficacy measures were standardized and averaged; self-efficacy is based on participants’ beliefs about the importance of and confidence in accomplishing key NFP behavioral objectives).

c

Standardized to sample: mean = 100; SD = 10.

d

Annual household discretionary income is based on income subsistence standards for Medicaid eligibility, reported household income, and number of individuals in the household at registration.

e

Persons per room.

f

Locally developed scale that assesses degree to which the mother experiences conflict in her relationship with this person.

g

Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory.43 

h

Average z scores of household discretionary income, housing density, and whether the head of household was employed.

i

Average of variables calculated in SD units from the national means of components that comprise the index of concentrated social disadvantage (percentage of block group residents: [1] below federal poverty level, [2] receiving public assistance, [3] unemployed, [4] headed by single women, [5] age <18, and [6] African American).25 

Table 4 summarizes estimates of youth functioning in the cognitive, language, achievement, and executive functioning domains for the sample as a whole and for youth born to mothers with LPR. With the exception of NV youth having higher rates of graduation with honors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 4.13; P = .028) and trends (P < .10) of NV youth having higher math scores and better emotion recognition, there were no intervention-control differences for the sample as a whole. NV children born to mothers with LPR, on the other hand, had better receptive language (effect size [ES] = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.47; P = .048) and math achievement (ES = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.61; P = .002) at age 18. For both of these outcomes, there were longitudinal effects over time. There were no intervention-control differences in nonverbal intelligence.

TABLE 4

Estimates of Cognitive, Language, Academic, and Executive Functioning Outcomes and SSI Benefit Received Among 18-Year-Old Youth in the Intervention and Control Conditions

VariableGroupChild Age at Assessment,a yControl, T2NV, T4T4–T2
NLS Meanb or % (SE)NLS Meanb or % (SE)ESc or aOR (95% CI)P
Primary outcome         
 Nonverbal intelligence Whole 18 431 LS mean 88.25 (0.62) 192 LS mean 88.47 (0.93) ES 0.02 (−0.17 to 0.20) .85 
 LPRd 18 227 LS mean 86.37 (0.86) 106 LS mean 87.41 (1.26) ES 0.09 (−0.16 to 0.34) .49 
 Whole Alle 454 LS mean 88.65 (0.47) 204 LS mean 89.58 (0.71) ES 0.08 (−0.06 to 0.22) .27 
 LPRd Alle 237 LS mean 87.16 (0.66) 111 LS mean 88.69 (0.98) ES 0.13 (−0.06 to 0.32) .19 
 Receptive language Whole 18 427 LS mean 81.60 (0.69) 194 LS mean 82.34 (1.03) ES 0.05 (−0.12 to 0.23) .55 
 LPRd 18 223 LS mean 79.02 (0.96) 108 LS mean 82.32 (1.39) ES 0.24 (0.00 to 0.47) .05** 
 Whole Alle 454 LS mena 82.08 (0.56) 204 LS mean 83.33 (0.83) ES 0.09 (−0.05 to 0.23) .21 
 LPRd Alle 237 LS mean 79.91 (0.78) 111 LS mean 82.79 (1.14) ES 0.21 (0.02 to 0.40) .03** 
 Math achievement score Whole 18 428 LS mean 80.38 (0.59) 193 LS mean 82.22 (0.88) ES 0.15 (−0.02 to 0.32) .08* 
 LPRd 18 225 LS mean 78.18 (0.82) 108 LS mean 82.73 (1.19) ES 0.38 (0.14 to 0.61) .002*** 
 Whole Allf 454 LS mean 85.22 (0.47) 205 LS mean 86.54 (0.71) ES 0.11 (−0.03 to 0.25) .12 
 LPRd Allf 237 LS mean 82.89 (0.66) 111 LS mean 86.70 (0.98) ES 0.31 (0.13 to 0.50) .001*** 
Secondary outcome         
 Sustained attention Whole 18 432 LS mean 8.68 (0.13) 194 LS mean 8.77 (0.19) ES 0.03 (−0.13 to 0.20) .67 
 LPRd 18 227 LS mean 8.22 (0.18) 108 LS mean 8.60 (0.26) ES 0.14 (−0.08 to 0.36) .22 
 Whole Allg 443 LS mean 8.68 (0.12) 199 LS mean 8.67 (0.18) ES −0.00 (−0.15 to 0.15) .97 
 LPRd Allg 232 LS mean 8.45 (0.17) 110 LS mean 8.57 (0.24) ES 0.04 (−0.16 to 0.24) .67 
 Working memory index Whole 18 432 LS mean 8.33 (0.13) 194 LS mean 8.66 (0.19) ES 0.12 (−0.04 to 0.29) .15 
 LPRd 18 227 LS mean 7.90 (0.18) 108 LS mean 8.51 (0.26) ES 0.23 (0.01 to 0.46) .04** 
 Emotion recognition, no. correct Whole 18 427 LS mean 52.55 (0.37) 190 LS mean 53.75 (0.56) ES 0.14 (−0.01 to 0.30) .08* 
 LPRd 18 225 LS mean 52.32 (0.52) 104 LS mean 54.19 (0.77) ES 0.22 (0.01 to 0.44) .04** 
 Risky decision-making Whole 18 430 LS mean 5.23 (0.19) 193 LS mean 4.92 (0.29) ES −0.08 (−0.25 to 0.10) .38 
 LPRd 18 227 LS mean 5.02 (0.27) 107 LS mean 4.95 (0.39) ES −0.02 (−0.25 to 0.21) .88 
 High school graduation Whole 18 431 71.8% (2.22) 188 75.5% (3.26) aOR 1.21 (0.81 to 1.82) .35 
 LPR 18 227 70.3% (3.14) 106 71.4% (4.51) aOR 1.06 (0.63 to 1.76) .83 
 Graduate with honorsh Whole 18 431 4.4% (1.05) 188 8.8% (2.12) aOR 2.12 (1.09 to 4.13) .03** 
 LPR 18 227 2.5% (0.99) 106 8.0% (2.70) aOR 3.34 (1.19 to 9.34) .02** 
 SSI: disabilityh Whole 18 429 5.8% (1.30) 190 3.4 %(1.27) aOR 0.58 (0.25 to 1.34) .19 
 LPRd 18 226 10.9% (2.21) 104 3.9% (1.70) aOR 0.33 (0.13 to 0.84) .01** 
VariableGroupChild Age at Assessment,a yControl, T2NV, T4T4–T2
NLS Meanb or % (SE)NLS Meanb or % (SE)ESc or aOR (95% CI)P
Primary outcome         
 Nonverbal intelligence Whole 18 431 LS mean 88.25 (0.62) 192 LS mean 88.47 (0.93) ES 0.02 (−0.17 to 0.20) .85 
 LPRd 18 227 LS mean 86.37 (0.86) 106 LS mean 87.41 (1.26) ES 0.09 (−0.16 to 0.34) .49 
 Whole Alle 454 LS mean 88.65 (0.47) 204 LS mean 89.58 (0.71) ES 0.08 (−0.06 to 0.22) .27 
 LPRd Alle 237 LS mean 87.16 (0.66) 111 LS mean 88.69 (0.98) ES 0.13 (−0.06 to 0.32) .19 
 Receptive language Whole 18 427 LS mean 81.60 (0.69) 194 LS mean 82.34 (1.03) ES 0.05 (−0.12 to 0.23) .55 
 LPRd 18 223 LS mean 79.02 (0.96) 108 LS mean 82.32 (1.39) ES 0.24 (0.00 to 0.47) .05** 
 Whole Alle 454 LS mena 82.08 (0.56) 204 LS mean 83.33 (0.83) ES 0.09 (−0.05 to 0.23) .21 
 LPRd Alle 237 LS mean 79.91 (0.78) 111 LS mean 82.79 (1.14) ES 0.21 (0.02 to 0.40) .03** 
 Math achievement score Whole 18 428 LS mean 80.38 (0.59) 193 LS mean 82.22 (0.88) ES 0.15 (−0.02 to 0.32) .08* 
 LPRd 18 225 LS mean 78.18 (0.82) 108 LS mean 82.73 (1.19) ES 0.38 (0.14 to 0.61) .002*** 
 Whole Allf 454 LS mean 85.22 (0.47) 205 LS mean 86.54 (0.71) ES 0.11 (−0.03 to 0.25) .12 
 LPRd Allf 237 LS mean 82.89 (0.66) 111 LS mean 86.70 (0.98) ES 0.31 (0.13 to 0.50) .001*** 
Secondary outcome         
 Sustained attention Whole 18 432 LS mean 8.68 (0.13) 194 LS mean 8.77 (0.19) ES 0.03 (−0.13 to 0.20) .67 
 LPRd 18 227 LS mean 8.22 (0.18) 108 LS mean 8.60 (0.26) ES 0.14 (−0.08 to 0.36) .22 
 Whole Allg 443 LS mean 8.68 (0.12) 199 LS mean 8.67 (0.18) ES −0.00 (−0.15 to 0.15) .97 
 LPRd Allg 232 LS mean 8.45 (0.17) 110 LS mean 8.57 (0.24) ES 0.04 (−0.16 to 0.24) .67 
 Working memory index Whole 18 432 LS mean 8.33 (0.13) 194 LS mean 8.66 (0.19) ES 0.12 (−0.04 to 0.29) .15 
 LPRd 18 227 LS mean 7.90 (0.18) 108 LS mean 8.51 (0.26) ES 0.23 (0.01 to 0.46) .04** 
 Emotion recognition, no. correct Whole 18 427 LS mean 52.55 (0.37) 190 LS mean 53.75 (0.56) ES 0.14 (−0.01 to 0.30) .08* 
 LPRd 18 225 LS mean 52.32 (0.52) 104 LS mean 54.19 (0.77) ES 0.22 (0.01 to 0.44) .04** 
 Risky decision-making Whole 18 430 LS mean 5.23 (0.19) 193 LS mean 4.92 (0.29) ES −0.08 (−0.25 to 0.10) .38 
 LPRd 18 227 LS mean 5.02 (0.27) 107 LS mean 4.95 (0.39) ES −0.02 (−0.25 to 0.21) .88 
 High school graduation Whole 18 431 71.8% (2.22) 188 75.5% (3.26) aOR 1.21 (0.81 to 1.82) .35 
 LPR 18 227 70.3% (3.14) 106 71.4% (4.51) aOR 1.06 (0.63 to 1.76) .83 
 Graduate with honorsh Whole 18 431 4.4% (1.05) 188 8.8% (2.12) aOR 2.12 (1.09 to 4.13) .03** 
 LPR 18 227 2.5% (0.99) 106 8.0% (2.70) aOR 3.34 (1.19 to 9.34) .02** 
 SSI: disabilityh Whole 18 429 5.8% (1.30) 190 3.4 %(1.27) aOR 0.58 (0.25 to 1.34) .19 
 LPRd 18 226 10.9% (2.21) 104 3.9% (1.70) aOR 0.33 (0.13 to 0.84) .01** 

The estimates of intervention-control differences averaged over all other fixed classification variables, including those within subjects, and the same treatment effect were restricted to the group defined by LPR. This table shows the least-squares means at 18 y and repeated measures over time (labeled “all” under “age at assessment”), which also are averaged over other fixed classification effects. For estimates of treatment effects based on repeated measures, we assumed an error structure with different variances at each time for a given child and a different covariance between pairs of times within each child. These were assumed to be the same for all children, and covariance between children was assumed to be negligible. Contrasts at specific, earlier time points are presented in earlier publications.1116  LS, least squares; T2, prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral.; T4, prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral and prenatal and infant and/or toddler nurse home visits.

a

Age 18 assessment denoted by 18 y; repeated-measures assessment denoted by “all.” The exact ages aggregated for repeated-measures estimates are given in footnotes.

b

Adjusted.

c

Expressed in SD units.

d

Subgroup defined by youth mothers falling into the lower half of the distribution for PR (LPR).

e

Ages 6 and 18.

f

Ages 6, 12, and 18.

g

Ages 12 and 18.

h

Exploratory outcome.

*

P < .10; ** P < .05; *** P < .01.

NV children born to mothers with LPR also had better working memories (ES = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.46; P = .045) and emotion-recognition abilities (ES = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.44; P = .040), lower SSI for disability (aOR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.84; P = .011), and higher rates of high school graduation with honors (aOR = 3.34; 95% CI: 1.19 to 9.34; P = .022) than their control-group counterparts.

There were no intervention-control differences in children’s sustained attention, risky decision-making, or high school graduation.

Table 5 shows that NV females, as a trend, had fewer criminal convictions than control females (incidence ratio [IR] = 0.47; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11; P = .080). There were no intervention-control differences in internalizing, externalizing, or total behavioral problems or in substance use or substance use disorders. There was a marginally significant difference for NV males, compared with control males, to report more convictions for interpersonal violence (IR = 2.15; 95% CI 0.90 to 5.27; P = .082; data not shown). There were no overall NV-control differences in STIs, timing to first pregnancy, timing to first live birth, HIV risk, gang participation, counts of arrests, convictions, and arrests or convictions for interpersonal violence.

TABLE 5

Estimates of Youth Substance-Use Disorders, Drug or Alcohol Use, STIs, Pregnancies, Births, Behavioral Problems, Arrests, Convictions, and Gang Activity

VariableGroupChild Age at Assessment, yControl, T2NV, T4T4–T2
NLS Meana or % (SE)NLS Meana or % (SE)ES,b aOR, IR, or HR (95% CI)P
Primary outcome         
 Time to substance-use disorderc,d Whole 18 435 10.5% (1.41) 194 13.2% (2.22) HR 1.28 (0.85 to 1.93) .24 
 Current drug use SR past month or positive laboratory test resulte Whole 18 423 48.4% (2.49) 190 51.1% (3.73) aOR 1.11 (0.78 to 1.58) .55 
 Time to first pregnancyc,d Males 18 210 17.2% (2.56) 95 15.0% (3.30) HR 0.86 (0.51 to 1.46) .57 
 Females 18 225 26.4% (2.92) 99 22.8% (3.95) HR 0.85 (0.54 to 1.32) .46 
 Time to first live birthc,d Males 18 210 6.3% (1.60) 95 7.5% (2.37) HR 1.20 (0.58 to 2.49) .62 
 Females 18 225 16.8% (2.45) 99 13.7% (3.21) HR 0.80 (0.46 to 1.41) .44 
 Any positive STI laboratory test result Males 18 198 15.4% (2.58) 88 14.8% (3.82) aOR 0.95 (0.47 to 1.94) .89 
 Females 18 220 22.8% (2.87) 99 25.5% (4.47) aOR 1.16 (0.66 to 2.04) .60 
 HIV risk (log transformed) Whole 18 417 LS mean −13.50 (0.17) 187 LS mean −13.77 (0.26) ES −0.08 (−0.25 to 0.10) .38 
 Internalizing behavior problemsf,g Whole 18 431 17.7% (1.93) 194 16.5% (2.79) aOR 0.92 (0.57 to 1.48) .73 
 Whole Allj 459 20.4% (1.35) 207 17.4% (1.85) aOR 0.82 (0.61 to 1.11) .19 
 No. arrestsc Whole 18 435 LS mean 0.35 (0.05) 194 LS mean 0.36 (0.08) IR 1.02 (0.61 to 1.70) .93 
 Females 18 225 LS mean 0.23 (0.05) 99 LS mean 0.19 (0.06) IR 0.84 (0.39 to 1.81) .65 
 No. convictionsc Whole 18 435 LS mean 0.28 (0.04) 194 LS mean 0.24 (0.06) IR 0.86 (0.50 to 1.47) .59 
 Females 18 225 LS mean 0.21 (0.04) 99 LS mean 0.10 (0.04) IR 0.47 (0.20 to 1.11) .08* 
 No. interpersonal violence arrestsc Whole 18 435 LS mean 0.14 (0.03) 194 LS mean 0.19 (0.05) IR 1.39 (0.73 to 2.65) .32 
 Females 18 225 LS mean 0.09 (0.03) 99 LS mean 0.14 (0.05) IR 1.48 (0.57 to 3.86) .42 
 No. interpersonal violence convictionsc Whole 18 435 LS mean 0.10 (0.02) 194 LS mean 0.13 (0.04) IR 1.33 (0.66 to 2.65) .43 
 Females 18 225 LS mean 0.08 (0.02) 99 LS mean 0.07 (0.03) IR 0.81 (0.28 to 2.34) .69 
 Ever in a gangc Whole 18 432 8.5% (1.44) 193 11.2% (2.31) aOR 1.35 (0.80 to 2.28) .27 
Secondary outcome         
 Externalizing behavior problemsh Whole 18 424 7.4% (1.31) 187 8.3% (2.08) aOR 1.13 (0.59 to 2.17) .72 
 Whole Allj 459 14.1% (1.20) 206 14.4% (1.80) aOR 1.02 (0.72 to 1.44) .91 
 Total behavior problemsg,h Whole 18 424 4.4% (1.01) 187 6.8% (1.89) aOR 1.60 (0.75 to 3.39) .22 
 Whole Allj 459 8.2% (0.95) 206 7.7% (1.48) aOR 0.94 (0.58 to 1.51) .79 
VariableGroupChild Age at Assessment, yControl, T2NV, T4T4–T2
NLS Meana or % (SE)NLS Meana or % (SE)ES,b aOR, IR, or HR (95% CI)P
Primary outcome         
 Time to substance-use disorderc,d Whole 18 435 10.5% (1.41) 194 13.2% (2.22) HR 1.28 (0.85 to 1.93) .24 
 Current drug use SR past month or positive laboratory test resulte Whole 18 423 48.4% (2.49) 190 51.1% (3.73) aOR 1.11 (0.78 to 1.58) .55 
 Time to first pregnancyc,d Males 18 210 17.2% (2.56) 95 15.0% (3.30) HR 0.86 (0.51 to 1.46) .57 
 Females 18 225 26.4% (2.92) 99 22.8% (3.95) HR 0.85 (0.54 to 1.32) .46 
 Time to first live birthc,d Males 18 210 6.3% (1.60) 95 7.5% (2.37) HR 1.20 (0.58 to 2.49) .62 
 Females 18 225 16.8% (2.45) 99 13.7% (3.21) HR 0.80 (0.46 to 1.41) .44 
 Any positive STI laboratory test result Males 18 198 15.4% (2.58) 88 14.8% (3.82) aOR 0.95 (0.47 to 1.94) .89 
 Females 18 220 22.8% (2.87) 99 25.5% (4.47) aOR 1.16 (0.66 to 2.04) .60 
 HIV risk (log transformed) Whole 18 417 LS mean −13.50 (0.17) 187 LS mean −13.77 (0.26) ES −0.08 (−0.25 to 0.10) .38 
 Internalizing behavior problemsf,g Whole 18 431 17.7% (1.93) 194 16.5% (2.79) aOR 0.92 (0.57 to 1.48) .73 
 Whole Allj 459 20.4% (1.35) 207 17.4% (1.85) aOR 0.82 (0.61 to 1.11) .19 
 No. arrestsc Whole 18 435 LS mean 0.35 (0.05) 194 LS mean 0.36 (0.08) IR 1.02 (0.61 to 1.70) .93 
 Females 18 225 LS mean 0.23 (0.05) 99 LS mean 0.19 (0.06) IR 0.84 (0.39 to 1.81) .65 
 No. convictionsc Whole 18 435 LS mean 0.28 (0.04) 194 LS mean 0.24 (0.06) IR 0.86 (0.50 to 1.47) .59 
 Females 18 225 LS mean 0.21 (0.04) 99 LS mean 0.10 (0.04) IR 0.47 (0.20 to 1.11) .08* 
 No. interpersonal violence arrestsc Whole 18 435 LS mean 0.14 (0.03) 194 LS mean 0.19 (0.05) IR 1.39 (0.73 to 2.65) .32 
 Females 18 225 LS mean 0.09 (0.03) 99 LS mean 0.14 (0.05) IR 1.48 (0.57 to 3.86) .42 
 No. interpersonal violence convictionsc Whole 18 435 LS mean 0.10 (0.02) 194 LS mean 0.13 (0.04) IR 1.33 (0.66 to 2.65) .43 
 Females 18 225 LS mean 0.08 (0.02) 99 LS mean 0.07 (0.03) IR 0.81 (0.28 to 2.34) .69 
 Ever in a gangc Whole 18 432 8.5% (1.44) 193 11.2% (2.31) aOR 1.35 (0.80 to 2.28) .27 
Secondary outcome         
 Externalizing behavior problemsh Whole 18 424 7.4% (1.31) 187 8.3% (2.08) aOR 1.13 (0.59 to 2.17) .72 
 Whole Allj 459 14.1% (1.20) 206 14.4% (1.80) aOR 1.02 (0.72 to 1.44) .91 
 Total behavior problemsg,h Whole 18 424 4.4% (1.01) 187 6.8% (1.89) aOR 1.60 (0.75 to 3.39) .22 
 Whole Allj 459 8.2% (0.95) 206 7.7% (1.48) aOR 0.94 (0.58 to 1.51) .79 

The estimates of intervention-control differences averaged over all other fixed classification variables, including those within subjects, and the same treatment effect was restricted to the group defined by females for arrest and conviction outcomes. This table shows the least-squares means at 18 y and repeated measures over time, which also are averaged over other fixed classification effects. For estimates of treatment effects based on repeated measures (labeled “all” under “age at assessment”), we assumed an error structure with different variances at each time for a given child and different covariance between pairs of times within each child. These were assumed to be the same for all children, and covariance between children was assumed to be negligible. Contrasts at specific, earlier time points are presented in earlier publications.1116  HR, hazards ratio; LS, least squares; SR, self-report; T2, prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral; T4, prenatal transportation plus developmental screening and referral and prenatal and infant and/or toddler nurse home visits.

a

Adjusted.

b

Expressed in SD units.

c

Arrest-related outcomes were based on self-report combined with maternal and other-caregiver report (when available).

d

Survival rate at age 18 from Cox proportional hazard model.

e

Based on both self-report for all substances and urine assays for specific substances: phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, cocaine, amphetamines, tetrahydrocannabinol, opiates, and barbiturates.

f

Internalizing problems were based on youth self-report at ages 12 and 18 and maternal and/or other-caregiver report at child age 6, indicated by values exceeding the borderline or clinical threshold.

g

Ages 6, 12, and 18.

h

Externalizing and total problems were based on reports in which mothers and/or other caregivers (age 6); mothers and/or other caregivers, teachers, and children (2 of 3 at age 12); and youth and mothers and/or other caregivers (age 18) reported scores that exceeded the borderline or clinical threshold.

*

P < .10.

There were no overall intervention-control differences for any of the behavioral health outcomes, but the program improved the receptive language and math achievement of 18-year-olds born to mothers with LPR and, as a trend, reduced convictions among females. In addition, NV youth graduated with honors more frequently, and those born to mothers with LPR, compared with control-group counterparts, had better working memories and emotion-recognition skills and fewer disabilities leading to receipt of SSI. High rates of sample retention increase the validity of these findings.

The program effect on cognitive-related outcomes was, with the exception of graduation with honors, limited to youth born to mothers with LPR, conditional effects consistent with earlier phases of this trial,1115  and a subsequent trial.1820  Most of these effects, except for the twofold increase in graduation with honors overall and threefold reduction in SSI for disability in the LPR group, are small by conventional standards45  but important because they reflect different aspects of cognition, disability, and academic success relevant to adult functioning. Moreover, most of these outcomes are based on directly measured abilities.

Program effects on emotion-recognition abilities and working memory, although not examined in other NFP trials, are consistent with a reduction in child maltreatment46,47  and earlier program effects on maltreatment-related outcomes.11,13,17  By age 2, for example, control children, compared with those visited by nurses, were hospitalized for fewer days for injuries and ingestions11 ; all admissions for fractures and/or head trauma occurred in control infants born to mothers with LPR.5,11  Control children born to mothers with LPR were less communicative and responsive to their mothers than those visited by nurses through 24 months11 ; and through age 18, they exhibited more compromised development and achievement.13,15  All preventable child mortality through age 20 occurred in the control group.17 

The improvements in cognitive outcomes and reductions in disability in the LPR group at age 18 suggest that the intervention may lead to additional functional and societal savings for this group, including possible reductions in Alzheimer disease and related disorders, given their relationship with adolescent cognitive functioning.48,49 

In interpreting the more pronounced program effect on the cognitive-related outcomes of children born to mothers with LPR, it is important to note that nurses visited the most vulnerable mothers more frequently, a consistent feature of NFP program design beginning with the Elmira trial.26  Moreover, children born to mothers with LPR had greater room for improvement.

Note that families were not randomly assigned to different visitation schedules, so discerning the role of visit patterns on outcomes is challenging. In exploratory latent class analyses of home visits in the current trial, 3 patterns were uncovered: low attendance (33% of those visited), high attendance (48%), and increasing attendance (18%). Those in the low-visit group had the highest educations at baseline; those in the increasing group had low education, the lowest number of prenatal visits, and high rates of preterm delivery; and those in the high-visit group also had low education at baseline. These findings highlight the role that mothers, in addition to nurses, play in shaping visit attendance patterns and the methodologic challenges involved in estimating intervention effects for those with different visitation patterns.27 

In using the visit patterns found here to guide community replication,5  it is important to emphasize that the dosage metric that the NFP is designed to achieve is the one actually delivered in the original RCTs and that nurses adjusted visit frequency and content in an effort to ensure that they address specific risks and guide responsive caregiving in the most vulnerable subgroups.

The program effect on convictions among females, although a trend, is consistent with a corresponding finding in the Elmira trial,10  reduced physical aggression among females at age 2 in the current trial,50  and intervention effects on trajectories of externalizing problems in the subsequent Denver trial among females, but not males, at ages 2, 4, 6, and 9.51  These female-limited beneficial effects may be connected to females’ particular susceptibility to the effects of prenatal stress on androgen activity during gestation52  and hormone-dependent endpoints, including conduct disorder.53  Moreover, females, compared with males, are particularly susceptible to the effects of harsh parenting on health,54,55  including the development of aggression.56 

There were no beneficial intervention effects in the current trial on 18-year-olds’ substance-use disorders, substance use, or internalizing disorders despite significant intervention effects in these domains at age 12 in the current trial15  and on substance use, arrests, and convictions through age 15 in the Elmira trial.9  The trend for NV males to report higher rates of conviction for interpersonal violence was not predicted. The absence of overall beneficial intervention effects on antisocial behavior at the end of adolescence, especially among males, is consistent with age-19 findings in the Elmira trial.10  There are at least 2 possible explanations for this pattern of results.

The first is that NFP’s promotion of sensitive, responsive care and avoidance of harsh treatment may have decreased parents’ attention to setting effective limits, especially among noncompliant males.56  The increase in NV males’ self-reported convictions for interpersonal violence found here, although not hypothesized, suggests that greater attention may be needed to address effective limit setting in NFP and to link this program to effective toddler and preschool parenting interventions.5760 

Second, the nearly normative rise in male adolescent–limited antisocial behavior not linked to maltreatment or early adversity61  may mask intervention effects on life-course–persistent antisocial behavior linked to early maltreatment that may become evident once adolescents assume adult roles. Note, however, that adolescents who become ensnared in substance abuse and criminal activity are at risk for long-term criminal involvement.6163 

The current report has limitations. The first is that nearly all of the behavioral health findings were based on self-report, and some evidence suggests that NV women become more accurate reporters of socially undesirable behavior, such as smoking.6  Although a case might also be made that NV youth were more attentive listeners and reporters (given program effects on verbal working memory), measurement of STIs and use of substances included urine assays, so this form of treatment-related report bias does not account for the absence of an intervention effect for these outcomes.

Second, we included 2 exploratory outcomes (high school graduation with honors and SSI for disability) that were not part of the original measurement design, so these findings need to be treated with caution.

Third, the age range for completing 18-year assessments was larger than anticipated but not different by treatment. Adjusting for youth age at assessment does not alter the findings (data not shown).

The fourth limitation is that the number of outcomes analyzed raises challenges with multiple comparisons. We have not adjusted for multiple comparisons in NFP trials.6467  We have focused instead on determining if findings replicate with different populations living in different contexts in separate trials. The long-term program effect on cognitive-related outcomes through the end of adolescence has not yet been tested in other trials, so particular caution is warranted in interpreting these outcomes.

This study found enduring program effects on the cognitive functioning of youth born to the mothers least capable of coping with the adversities that come with living in poverty and a trend for reduced convictions among females but no effects on other adolescent health behavior.

The current phase of this research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (1R01DA021624). Mr Knudtson had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the analysis. We thank Evelyn Collins for tracing and engaging the study participants and managing the Memphis study office since 1991, Benjamin Jutson (University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus) for helping prepare this article, and Wendy Gehring (University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus) for her help with data management. Evelyn Collins, Benjamin Jutson, and Wendy Gehring received compensation from research grants for their work.

Deidentified individual participant data (including data dictionaries) will be made available in addition to study protocols, the statistical analysis plan, and the informed consent form. The data will be made available on publication to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal for use in achieving the goals of the approved proposal. Please contact Michael Knudtson, the study biostatistician, at michael.knudtson@cuanschutz.edu or 303-724-3199 for additional details.

Dr Olds conceptualized and designed the study, drafted the manuscript, and supervised the study; Dr Kitzman conceptualized and designed the study, obtained funding, and supervised the study; Dr Cole conceptualized and designed the study and obtained funding; Mr Knudtson acquired data and performed statistical analysis on the data; Dr Smith and Ms Anson acquired data; Drs Fishbein, DiClemente, Wingood, Caliendo, Hopfer, and Miller conceptualized and designed the study; and all authors analyzed and interpreted data, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT00708695).

FUNDING: Supported by the National Institutes of Health (research grant R01DA021624). Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

COMPANION PAPER: Companions to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2019-2606 and www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2019-3889.

     
  • aOR

    adjusted odds ratio

  •  
  • CAA

    maternal attitudes predictive of child abuse

  •  
  • CI

    confidence interval

  •  
  • ES

    effect size

  •  
  • IR

    incidence ratio

  •  
  • LPR

    limited psychological resources

  •  
  • NFP

    Nurse-Family Partnership

  •  
  • NV

    nurse visit

  •  
  • PR

    psychological resources

  •  
  • RCT

    randomized clinical trial

  •  
  • SSI

    Supplemental Social Security Income

  •  
  • STI

    sexually transmitted infection

1
Shonkoff
JP
,
Boyce
WT
,
McEwen
BS
.
Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood roots of health disparities: building a new framework for health promotion and disease prevention
.
JAMA
.
2009
;
301
(
21
):
2252
2259
2
Garner
AS
,
Shonkoff
JP
;
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health
;
Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care
;
Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
.
Early childhood adversity, toxic stress, and the role of the pediatrician: translating developmental science into lifelong health
.
Pediatrics
.
2012
;
129
(
1
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/1/e224
3
Kinsella
MT
,
Monk
C
.
Impact of maternal stress, depression and anxiety on fetal neurobehavioral development
.
Clin Obstet Gynecol
.
2009
;
52
(
3
):
425
440
4
Rauh
VA
,
Margolis
AE
.
Research review: environmental exposures, neurodevelopment, and child mental health – new paradigms for the study of brain and behavioral effects
.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry
.
2016
;
57
(
7
):
775
793
5
Olds
DL
.
Prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses: from randomized trials to community replication
.
Prev Sci
.
2002
;
3
(
3
):
153
172
6
Olds
DL
,
Henderson
CR
 Jr
,
Tatelbaum
R
,
Chamberlin
R
.
Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation
.
Pediatrics
.
1986
;
77
(
1
):
16
28
7
Olds
DL
,
Henderson
CR
 Jr
,
Chamberlin
R
,
Tatelbaum
R
.
Preventing child abuse and neglect: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation
.
Pediatrics
.
1986
;
78
(
1
):
65
78
8
Olds
DL
,
Eckenrode
J
,
Henderson
CR
 Jr
, et al
.
Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial
.
JAMA
.
1997
;
278
(
8
):
637
643
9
Olds
D
,
Henderson
CR
 Jr
,
Cole
R
, et al
.
Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
.
JAMA
.
1998
;
280
(
14
):
1238
1244
10
Eckenrode
J
,
Campa
M
,
Luckey
DW
, et al
.
Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial
.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
2010
;
164
(
1
):
9
15
11
Kitzman
H
,
Olds
DL
,
Henderson
CR
 Jr
, et al
.
Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing. A randomized controlled trial
.
JAMA
.
1997
;
278
(
8
):
644
652
12
Kitzman
H
,
Olds
DL
,
Sidora
K
, et al
.
Enduring effects of nurse home visitation on maternal life course: a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial
.
JAMA
.
2000
;
283
(
15
):
1983
1989
13
Olds
DL
,
Kitzman
H
,
Cole
R
, et al
.
Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial
.
Pediatrics
.
2004
;
114
(
6
):
1550
1559
14
Olds
DL
,
Kitzman
H
,
Hanks
C
, et al
.
Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial
.
Pediatrics
.
2007
;
120
(
4
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/120/4/e832
15
Kitzman
H
,
Olds
DL
,
Cole
RE
, et al
.
Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on children: age-12 follow-up of a randomized trial
.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
2010
;
164
(
5
):
412
418
16
Olds
DL
,
Kitzman
H
,
Cole
R
, et al
.
Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on maternal life-course and government spending: age-12 follow-up of a randomized trial
.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
2010
;
164
(
5
):
419
424
17
Olds
DL
,
Kitzman
H
,
Knudtson
MD
, et al
.
Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality: results of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2014
;
168
(
9
):
800
806
18
Olds
DL
,
Robinson
J
,
O’Brien
R
, et al
.
Home visiting by paraprofessionals and by nurses: a randomized, controlled trial
.
Pediatrics
.
2002
;
110
(
3
):
486
496
19
Olds
DL
,
Robinson
J
,
Pettitt
L
, et al
.
Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial
.
Pediatrics
.
2004
;
114
(
6
):
1560
1568
20
Olds
DL
,
Holmberg
JR
,
Donelan-McCall
N
, et al
.
Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses on children: follow-up of a randomized trial at ages 6 and 9 years
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2014
;
168
(
2
):
114
121
21
Shipley
WC
.
A self-administered scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration
.
J Psychol
.
1940
;
9
:
371
377
22
Ware
JE
,
Veit
CT
,
Donald
CA
.
Refinements in the Measurement of Mental Health for Adults in the Health Insurance Study
.
Santa Monica, CA
:
Rand Corp
;
1985
23
Pearlin
LI
,
Schooler
C
.
The structure of coping
.
J Health Soc Behav
.
1978
;
19
(
1
):
2
21
24
Bandura
A
.
Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
.
Psychol Rev
.
1977
;
84
(
2
):
191
215
25
Lauritsen
JL
.
The social ecology of violent victimization: individual and contextual effects in the NCVS
.
J Quant Criminol
.
2001
;
17
(
1
):
3
32
26
Olds
DL
,
Korfmacher
J
.
Maternal psychological characteristics as influences on home visitation contact
.
J Community Psychol
.
1998
;
26
:
23
36
27
Holland
ML
,
Xia
Y
,
Kitzman
HJ
,
Dozier
AM
,
Olds
DL
.
Patterns of visit attendance in the Nurse-Family Partnership program
.
Am J Public Health
.
2014
;
104
(
10
):
e58
e65
28
Kaufman
AS
,
Kaufman
NL
.
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test
, 2nd ed.
Bloomington, MN
:
Pearson Clinical
;
2004
29
Kaufman
AS
,
Kaufman
NL
.
K-ABC: Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
.
Circle Pines, MN
:
American Guidance Service
;
1983
30
Dunn
LM
,
Dunn
LM
.
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
, 3rd ed.
Bloomington, MN
:
Pearson Clinical
;
1997
31
Markwardt
FC
.
Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (Normative Update)
.
Circle Pines, MN
:
American Guidance Service
;
1998
32
Roid
GH
,
Miller
LJ
.
Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised: Examiner’s Manual
.
Wood Dale, IL
:
Stoelting Co
;
1997
33
Wechsler
D
.
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
, 3rd ed.
San Antonio, TX
:
Psychological Corporation
;
1997
34
Ekman
P
,
Friesen
WV
.
Pictures of Facial Affect
.
Palo Alto, CA
:
Consulting Psychologists Press
;
1975
35
Fishbein
DH
,
Eldreth
DL
,
Hyde
C
, et al
.
Risky decision making and the anterior cingulate cortex in abstinent drug abusers and nonusers
.
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res
.
2005
;
23
(
1
):
119
136
36
Achenbach
TM
,
Rescorla
LA
.
Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles
.
Burlington, VT
:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families
;
2001
37
Tarter
RE
,
Mezzich
AC
,
Kirisci
L
,
Kaczynski
N
.
Reliability of the drug use screening inventory among adolescent alcoholics
.
J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse
.
1994
;
3
(
1
):
25
36
38
Cottler
LB
,
Robins
LN
,
Helzer
JE
.
The reliability of the CIDI-SAM: a comprehensive substance abuse interview
.
Br J Addict
.
1989
;
84
(
7
):
801
814
39
Carroll
KC
,
Aldeen
WE
,
Morrison
M
, et al
.
Evaluation of the Abbott LCx ligase chain reaction assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in urine and genital swab specimens from a sexually transmitted disease clinic population
.
J Clin Microbiol
.
1998
;
36
(
6
):
1630
1633
40
Gaydos
CA
,
Howell
MR
,
Quinn
TC
,
Gaydos
JC
,
McKee
KT
 Jr
.
Use of ligase chain reaction with urine versus cervical culture for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in an asymptomatic military population of pregnant and nonpregnant females attending Papanicolaou smear clinics
.
J Clin Microbiol
.
1998
;
36
(
5
):
1300
1304
41
Madico
G
,
Quinn
TC
,
Rompalo
A
,
McKee
KT
 Jr
,
Gaydos
CA
.
Diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis infection by PCR using vaginal swab samples
.
J Clin Microbiol
.
1998
;
36
(
11
):
3205
3210
42
Pinkerton
SD
,
Abramson
PR
. The Bernoulli-Process Model of HIV Transmission. In:
Holtgrave
DR
, ed.
Handbook of Economic Evaluation of HIV Prevention Programs
.
New York, NY
:
Springer US
;
1998
43
Bavolek
SJ
,
Kline
DF
,
McLaughlin
JA
,
Publicover
PR
.
Primary prevention of child abuse and neglect: identification of high-risk adolescents
.
Child Abuse Negl
.
1979
;
3
(
3–4
):
1071
1080
44
Proschan
MA
,
Dodd
LE
.
Re-randomization tests in clinical trials
.
Stat Med
.
2019
;
38
(
12
):
2292
2302
45
Cohen
J
.
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
, 2nd ed.
Hillsdale, NJ
:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates
;
1988
46
Pollak
SD
,
Cicchetti
D
,
Hornung
K
,
Reed
A
.
Recognizing emotion in faces: developmental effects of child abuse and neglect
.
Dev Psychol
.
2000
;
36
(
5
):
679
688
47
Dodaj
A
,
Krajina
M
,
Sesar
K
,
Šimić
N
.
The effects of maltreatment in childhood on working memory capacity in adulthood
.
Eur J Psychol
.
2017
;
13
(
4
):
618
632
48
Huang
AR
,
Strombotne
KL
,
Horner
EM
,
Lapham
SJ
.
Adolescent cognitive aptitudes and later-in-life Alzheimer disease and related disorders
.
JAMA Netw Open
.
2018
;
1
(
5
):
e181726
49
Russ
TC
.
Intelligence, cognitive reserve, and dementia: time for intervention?
JAMA Netw Open
.
2018
;
1
(
5
):
e181724
50
Sidora-Arcoleo
K
,
Anson
E
,
Lorber
M
, et al
.
Differential effects of a nurse home-visiting intervention on physically aggressive behavior in children
.
J Pediatr Nurs
.
2010
;
25
(
1
):
35
45
51
Lorber
MF
,
Olds
DL
,
Donelan-McCall
N
.
The impact of a preventive intervention on persistent, cross-situational early onset externalizing problems
.
Prev Sci
.
2019
;
20
(
5
):
684
694
52
Barrett
ES
,
Swan
SH
.
Stress and androgen activity during fetal development
.
Endocrinology
.
2015
;
156
(
10
):
3435
3441
53
Pajer
K
,
Tabbah
R
,
Gardner
W
, et al
.
Adrenal androgen and gonadal hormone levels in adolescent girls with conduct disorder
.
Psychoneuroendocrinology
.
2006
;
31
(
10
):
1245
1256
54
Thompson
MP
,
Kingree
JB
,
Desai
S
.
Gender differences in long-term health consequences of physical abuse of children: data from a nationally representative survey
.
Am J Public Health
.
2004
;
94
(
4
):
599
604
55
Suglia
SF
,
Clark
CJ
,
Boynton-Jarrett
R
,
Kressin
NR
,
Koenen
KC
.
Child maltreatment and hypertension in young adulthood
.
BMC Public Health
.
2014
;
14
:
1149
56
Keenan
K
,
Shaw
DS
.
The development of aggression in toddlers: a study of low-income families
.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
.
1994
;
22
(
1
):
53
77
57
Pidano
AE
,
Allen
AQR
.
The Incredible-Years Series: a review of the independent research base
.
J Child Fam Stud
.
2015
;
24
(
7
):
1898
1916
58
Dawson-McClure
S
,
Calzada
E
,
Huang
KY
, et al
.
A population-level approach to promoting healthy child development and school success in low-income, urban neighborhoods: impact on parenting and child conduct problems
.
Prev Sci
.
2015
;
16
(
2
):
279
290
59
Breitenstein
SM
,
Gross
D
,
Fogg
L
, et al
.
The Chicago Parent Program: comparing 1-year outcomes for African American and Latino parents of young children
.
Res Nurs Health
.
2012
;
35
(
5
):
475
489
60
Côté
SM
,
Orri
M
,
Tremblay
RE
,
Doyle
O
.
A multicomponent early intervention program and trajectories of behavior, cognition, and health
.
Pediatrics
.
2018
;
141
(
5
):
e20173174
61
Moffitt
TE
.
Male antisocial behaviour in adolescence and beyond
.
Nat Hum Behav
.
2018
;
2
:
177
186
62
Mercer
N
,
Farrington
DP
,
Ttofi
MM
, et al
.
Childhood predictors and adult life success of adolescent delinquency abstainers
.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
.
2016
;
44
(
3
):
613
624
63
Hussong
AM
,
Curran
PJ
,
Moffitt
TE
,
Caspi
A
,
Carrig
MM
.
Substance abuse hinders desistance in young adults’ antisocial behavior
.
Dev Psychopathol
.
2004
;
16
(
4
):
1029
1046
64
Olds
DL
,
Luckey
D
,
Henderson
C
.
Can the results be believed?: in reply
.
Pediatrics
.
2005
;
115
(
4
):
1113
1114
65
Rothman
KJ
.
No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons
.
Epidemiology
.
1990
;
1
(
1
):
43
46
66
Perneger
TV
.
What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments
.
BMJ
.
1998
;
316
(
7139
):
1236
1238
67
Goodman
SN
.
Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: the P value fallacy
.
Ann Intern Med
.
1999
;
130
(
12
):
995
1004

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The Prevention Research Center for Family and Child Health, directed by Dr Olds at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, has a contract with the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) to conduct research to improve the NFP program and its implementation; this contract covers part of Dr Olds’s salary and part of Mr Knudtson’s salary. Dr Olds and Mr Knudtson were employed by this center at the time the study was conducted. Dr Olds is the founder of NFP and, with the University of Colorado, owns the NFP intellectual property. The University of Colorado receives royalties from governments and organizations outside of the United States that implement NFP and has contracts with those entities to guide the implementation of NFP with quality, but none of the royalties or fees go to Dr Olds personally; they are used to support the Prevention Research Center for Family and Child Health research and implementation guidance. Dr Miller performs economic analyses under contract for the nonprofit Nurse-Family Partnership National Service Office; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Dr Olds receives personal honoraria and travel expenses from philanthropies and organizations for speaking about the Nurse-Family Partnership and early intervention; the other authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose, beyond those already listed in the Potential Conflict of Interest.

Supplementary data