Family home visiting outcomes for mothers with and without intellectual disabilities

Abstract

Family home visiting appears to be effective in assisting parents with ID to have improved outcomes in many domains. These results provide an opportunity for service providers, home visiting nurses and public health agencies to understand the unique needs of mothers with ID.

Good Enough Support? Exploring the Attitudes, Knowledge and Experiences of Practitioners in Social Services and Child Welfare Working with Mothers with Intellectual Disability

“…Upon becoming mothers, these women also face a number of challenges such as prejudice from society, economic disadvantage, poorer physical health and a higher level of mental health problems than mothers without intellectual disability, as well as an increased risk of having their children removed from their care (Monsen et al . ; Hindmarsh et al . ).…”

“…Despite these disadvantages, many women with intellectual disability can be successful parents, given suitable supports, such as parenting programmes (Bloomfield & Kendall ; Monsen et al . ), and social networks being available (Willems et al . ; Meppelder et al .…”

Benchmark Attainment by Maternal and Child Health Clients Across Public Health Nursing Agencies

“…Problems are typically rated at admission and discharge. Outcomes benchmarks have been previously defined as a rating of 4 or greater at discharge (Monsen, Sanders, Yu, Radosevich, & Geppert, 2011b). Detailed information about the Omaha System is available online at omahasystem.org.…”

The Omaha System: a systematic review of the recent literature

“…Seven observational studies used correlational design (six of them were in the 'Analyze client outcomes' category). 9 28-30 37 38 52 The overall methodological quality of these articles was relatively high; using the STROBE criteria, 13 the average score was 18/22 (range [17][18][19][20] The overall methodological quality of these articles was also relatively high; using the modified STROBE criteria, the average score was 14.6/17 (range 12-16.5). The most common issues were the lack of description of the efforts to address potential sources of bias and insufficient or lacking discussion of the limitations of the study (items 9 and 19 in the original STROBE checklist 14 ).…”

“…One example that illustrates the current categorization process is an article titled 'Family home visiting outcomes for mothers with and without intellectual disabilities', 9 which was categorized as 'analyze client outcomes' because its main goal was to evaluate the impact of homecare nursing interventions on mothers' outcomes. Another example is a non-research article titled 'The OS: coded data that describe patient care' that was categorized as 'other' because its main goal was to describe the structure, aims, and capabilities of the OS for the use by healthcare professionals.…”