PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10499012

Implementing nurse home visitation programs.

C A Hanks·J Smith
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Nurse home visitation has been an important component of public health for over 100 years. Recent reports of large clinical trials have provided a convincing body of evidence of the cost-effectiveness of home visitation. The findings from these studies have helped to renew policy interest in nurse home visitation as a means of improving health and quality of life for low-income families. Reimplementing home visitation on a large scale, however, will require using nurses with little or no home-visiting experience. Sponsoring organizations must delegate, and nurses from hospitals or clinics must accept, responsibility for both increased autonomy and discretion of home visitors. Case study analysis of observational and interview data from the implementation of a large demonstration home visitation program carried out in a health department in a mid-South city from 1989 to 1994 provides evidence that the bottom-up perspective of Hanf and Toonen (1983) best describes how such programs can be put in place. Nurses with little community experience were able to create appropriate strategies to help families achieve the broad program goals in the context of resource constraints associated with a poverty-level lifestyle and the existing health and human service system. Furthermore, nurses were able to establish an organizational culture and job structure in a city/county health department to support their work.

Explore related subjects

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHealth PromotionHome Care ServicesHumansLife StyleModels, NursingNursing Evaluation ResearchOrganizational Case StudiesPovertyProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationPublic Health NursingQuality of LifeUnited StatesClinical TrialJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C A Hanks, J Smith. 1999. Implementing nurse home visitation programs.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1446.1999.00235.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Low-cost on-the-job peer training of nurses improved immunization coverage in Indonesia.

In Indonesia responsibility for immunizations is placed on local government health centres and on the nurses who provide the immunizations at each centre. An on-the-job peer training programme for these nurses, which was designed to improve the immunization performance of poorly performing health centres in terms of coverage and practice in Maluku province, was evaluated. Experienced immunization nurses were sent to health centres where nurses were inexperienced or performing poorly; the experienced nurses spent 1-2 weeks providing on-the-job training for the less experienced ones. An evaluation of the 13 centres that participated in the programme and the 95 that did not found that the programme increased both immunization coverage and the quality of practice. Coverage of diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT), polio, and measles vaccinations rose by about 39% in all 13 participating centres when compared with non-participating centres, and by about 54% in the 11 centres that had a functioning transportation system during the year after training. These results reflect increases in the actual number of doses given and improvements in the accuracy of reports. Potential threats to the study's validity were examined and found not to be significant. The out-of-pocket cost of the training programme was about US$ 53 per trainee or about US$ 0.05 per additional vaccine reported to have been given. The marginal cost per additional fully immunized child was estimated to be US$ 0.50.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Understanding costs and cost-effectiveness in critical care: report from the second American Thoracic Society workshop on outcomes research.

Economic evaluations are increasingly common in the critical care literature, although approaches to their conduct are not standardized. The American Thoracic Society convened a workshop to address methodologic and reporting issues for economic analyses in critical care and to determine how guidelines from the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine (PCEHM) were applicable to critical care. We identified several issues that hamper cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in the critically ill. Data on the effectiveness of intensive care unit (ICU) interventions are often lacking; ICU patients are complex, with multiple concurrent problems and interventions; most ICU therapies are only supportive, and therefore may not individually result in improved outcome; accurate cost data are not commonly available and are difficult to obtain; there is no standardized approach for measuring or valuing costs across countries; typical outcomes in ICU studies (e.g., short-term mortality) are not ideal for CEAs while preferred outcomes for CEAs (e.g., long-term quality-adjusted survival) are rarely collected; valuing the importance of appropriate end-of-life care, an important aspect of ICU care, is difficult, and the burden of critical illness on family members is not easily captured in a CEA. Nevertheless, many of these problems are not unique to critical care, and we believe the PCEHM guidelines can be adapted to the critical care setting. We recommend all CEAs in the critically ill include a PCEHM reference case, where the cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated by adopting a societal perspective, estimating long-term costs and quality of life after ICU care, applying a 3% annual discount rate to costs and effects, and conducting multiway sensitivity analyses. Because elements of the reference case, such as long-term costs and quality of life, may only be estimated using modeling and assumptions, we also recommend inclusion of a "data-rich" case, where the cost-effectiveness ratio is generated as closely as possible from data on actual patient outcomes and costs (e.g., hospital costs per hospital survivor). We recommend that investigators conducting a CEA concurrently with a randomized trial make the proposed model available (e.g., via the Internet) before unblinding of trial data to minimize bias. Adopting a standard approach to CEAs of ICU therapies will provide a valid and more transparent evidence base for health care policy with regard to care of the critically ill.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗