Abstract
This review maps and summarizes the quantitative studies on the main outcomes associated with home visiting (HV) programs using Brazelton methods aimed at supporting expectant and new parents. One hundred thirty-seven records were identified, and 19 records were selected. The design of our study was based on the methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. Quality was assessed through the Jadad scale. Studies were coded for participant characteristics (number, mean age, and risk status), methodology (recruitment, home visit frequency, age of the child, Brazelton method, and research design), and intervention outcomes (on infants, parents, and home visitors). The studies mostly focused on the impact of Brazelton HV programs on infant development, the mother’s psychological well-being, mother-infant interaction, and home visitor satisfaction. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies consistently have shown that parents receiving the intervention have greater knowledge of their children. Results are less conclusive regarding the intervention’s impact on other domains of child development, mothers’ psychological well-being, and mothers’ sensitivity to the relationship with the child. Overall, the results suggest that the improvements associated with the intervention are mainly influenced by the risk status of families. Further research is needed to better understand the benefits of HV based on the Brazelton approach and the target population that may benefit most from this intervention.
Conclusion: Although the impact of the Brazelton home visiting intervention is not yet fully understood, there is promising evidence of its positive effects on child development, maternal well-being, and parental knowledge. Further research with consistent methodologies and larger sample sizes is needed to strengthen our understanding. However, existing findings in the literature underscore the importance of preventive interventions such as the Brazelton program in improving family well-being, with potential long-term benefits.
What is Known: |
• Home visiting programs based on the Brazelton approach aim to increase parents’ knowledge and sensitivity to their children. |
• There is no clear picture in the literature of the effectiveness of these programs. |
What is New: |
• Existing studies consistently show the effectiveness of these programs to improve parents’ knowledge of their children. |
• Findings on the impact of these programs on child development, mothers' psychological well-being and sensitivity to their child are inconclusive and may be influenced by the risk status. |
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The transition to parenthood and the beginning of a new life pose great challenges for parents and children, especially under risky conditions [1,2,3]. The scientific literature has identified home visiting programs as an effective strategy to guide parents to effectively address these challenges [4,5,6,7,8,9]. The term home visiting (HV) is typically used to refer to the various service programs provided by home carers or home visitors aimed at improving children’s development through parental support in their homes [10]. Although they are recommended treatments, their effectiveness depends on several factors, such as different implementation methods, the target of the intervention, the duration, the quality of training of the home visitors, the frequency of HVs, and the content of the curriculum of the intervention [1, 6].
A specific type of HV program is based on the Brazelton approach which aims to increase parental awareness and consequently sensitivity to child development and needs [11]. Brazelton identified specific, critical, and predictable developmental periods, called touchpoints, in which children learn new skills but at the same time exhibit increased nervousness and behavioral regressions that challenge parent–child interaction. Although these critical periods are functional in children’s growth [11], if not properly identified and anticipated, they can increase parents’ stress levels and decrease their sensitivity to children’s needs and parental self-efficacy [11, 12]. To support parents, Brazelton devised anticipatory guidance (AG) which leads parents to anticipate the various stages of their children’s development and related problem behaviors [11]. For example, the HV visitor can anticipate to parents their 9-month-old child’s new motor skills and the possibility that the child may be restless because he or she is channeling energy to begin walking [11, 13]. This methodology helps parents to understand their child’s development [13, 14], acquire new parenting skills [15], and avoid anxious overreactions [11, 13].
In the Brazelton approach, the home visitor may also use the Newborn Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) or the Newborn Behavioral Observations system (NBO), which are protocols of systematical observation of infants’ responses to stimuli. They are administered in the presence of parents and guide them to find new ways of observing their children, focusing on their strengths, peculiarities, and temperament. These procedures are aimed at (a) creating a relationship between home visitors and parents that is collaborative, nonjudgmental, empathic, respectful, and aimed at identifying the family’s resources and strengths; (b) connecting parents with social resources; and (c) increasing parents’ understanding of their children and subsequent parental self-efficacy [16].
In 2018, Barlow and colleagues [17] reviewed 16 studies of Brazelton programs conducted in the USA. However, the authors did not distinguish which are provided at home and which are provided in a hospital or clinic, despite the different costs of the two types of interventions. Thus, to our knowledge, there are no reviews specifically examining the effectiveness of the Brazelton approach using HV programs. A scoping review methodology [18] on HV programs based on the Brazelton approach may be useful in filling this gap in the research literature, discussing its effectiveness, formulating methodological considerations, and identifying future directions. Specifically, we aimed to answer the following research questions:
-
1.
Are the different home visiting programs based on the Brazelton approach effective in the promotion of child and parental adjustment outcomes (e.g., child development, mother’s psychological well-being, quality of mother-infant interaction)?
-
2.
Do these outcomes differ according to specific categories of at-risk families?
-
3.
What are the characteristics of existing research studies (e.g., participant demographics and methodological characteristics) on HV Brazelton programs?
Materials and methods
Study design
We conducted a scoping review, a type of review that aims to quickly map the key concepts underlying a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available [19]. The design of our study was based on Arskey and O'Malley’s [19] methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. Specifically, we proceeded through the following steps: identifying the research questions; identifying relevant studies; selecting studies; charting data; and collating, summarizing, and reporting results. In doing so, we followed the guidelines for PRISMA-ScR scoping reviews [20]. The collation, summary, and reporting of results aimed to use a descriptive approach to describe what improvements for children and/or parents are associated with Brazelton HV programs and whether these improvements can be categorized according to Brazelton technique, program beneficiary (e.g., parent or child), presence of a risk factor (e.g., maternal depression), and domain of adaptation (e.g., psychological well-being).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies that reported all the four following characteristics were included in the review: (a) HV programs that used the Brazelton approach (i.e., touchpoint approach, NBO, anticipatory guidance, or NBAS) as the only approach or combined with other non-Brazelton approaches, (b) programs focused on supporting newborns or at-risk parents, (c) programs conducted by a practitioner who the authors explicitly stated was certified in the Brazelton approach, and (d) studies that evaluated the effectiveness of the program. Studies written in English, or another language understood by authors (French, Spanish, and Italian), and published in any date range were potentially eligible for inclusion.
Excluded were (a) studies in which Brazelton’s intervention was conducted in clinical or hospital settings (i.e., not in HV settings); (b) studies in which HV programs were not used as an intervention but as an evaluation of a treatment previously conducted in clinical or hospital settings; and (c) studies that used only a qualitative approach.
Literature search
We analyzed all empirical studies that tested the effectiveness of HV programs for families using the touchpoints approach (with anticipatory guidance), the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS), and the Newborn Behavioral Observations (NBO). Following PRISMA guidelines [20], we conducted a comprehensive search (by title and abstract) of empirical studies conducted in any country using PsycINFO, ERIC, PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, MLA, Education Research Complete, Sociology Source Ultimate, and PUBMED (Supplemental File 1). We conducted Boolean searches of each database using the following search term combinations: (“neonatal behavioral observation” OR NBO OR “anticipatory guidance” OR NBAS OR “neonatal behavioral assessment scale” OR Brazelton) AND (“home treatment”, OR “home-visit*” OR “health intervention” OR “health visit*”). Forty articles were identified. We also consulted Google Scholar, which enabled us to identify another 38 records. Fifty-nine records were identified from the references. Among the 16 studies included in the review by Barlow and colleagues [17], four studies used HV. However, of these studies, we included in our review only the two that used HV as a treatment and discarded the remaining two studies because HV was only performed to evaluate treatments previously conducted in clinical or hospital settings. After the screening, 19 records were included in the review (see Fig. 1).
Study selection
The records search was conducted by the first and third authors. To avoid double counting of the same studies, duplicate publications were identified and removed. Then, all articles were reviewed separately by the first and third authors, who checked the titles and abstracts and removed irrelevant studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full-text screening was used when there was uncertainty about the relevance of studies after screening the title and abstract, or when they were judged to be potentially relevant (K = 0.80). Disagreements were resolved through joint data review and coding by consensus.
Data extraction
Relevant data were extracted from each study, including (a) study characteristics (e.g., authors, year, and country of publication); (b) demographic characteristics of participants (e.g., number of participants, mean age of mothers and presence of risk factors); (c) methodological characteristics (e.g., recruitment method, number of HV, age of the child during HV program, intervention method, and research design); and (d) treatment effects on infants, mother, child-mother interaction, and home visitors (Brazelton programs in the various studies were extracted and considered statistically significant if the p value was less than 0.05). Risk factors included the presence of a depressed or adolescent mother, child developmental delay, racial/ethnic minority membership, low socioeconomic status (SES), and lack of health insurance. Intervention methods included NBO, NBAS, AG, and integrated approaches (IAs). In our review, IA referred to HV programs that integrated Brazelton’s techniques with perinatal dyadic psychotherapy in the studies by Goodman and colleagues [21, 22] and the Steps Toward Effective Enjoyable Parenting program in the study by Guthrie and colleagues [23]. Overall, all research designs were classified into randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and feasibility studies. The first author used a form developed by the research team to extract the data. The third author verified that all extracted data were accurate and complete. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.
Quality assessment
The studies underwent a quality assessment using Jadad’s 3-point scale [24]. The Jadad scale assesses whether studies are described as randomized (1 point), double-blinded (1 point), and whether they provide a description of withdrawals and dropouts (1 point), for a maximum of 3 points. However, we considered the blinding score 1 if the evaluator was blinded since it is usually impossible to have a double-blind design in psychological interventions. As a result, eleven studies received a Jadad score of 2 or 3, whereas eight studies received a Jadad score of 0 or 1 (see table in Supplemental File 2).
Results
Nineteen papers (sixteen articles and three dissertations) published between 2009 and 2022 were identified (see table in Supplemental File 2). Thirteen studies were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, two in Norway, two in Denmark, one in Iceland, and one in Portugal. Regarding the presence of family risk factors, four studies involved depressed mothers, two studies involved mothers with symptoms of anxiety or depression, two studies involved children with developmental delay, and one study involved depressed mothers with children who had developmental delay. Other risk factors included being an adolescent mother in one study and having low SES, and being part of a racial/ethnic minority in four studies. Of the latter four, one included families without health insurance. Finally, four studies did not include at-risk families.
Seven studies recruited participants in a hospital after delivery, ten studies recruited participants in a clinic (e.g., prenatal clinic or family health center), three studies used a community sample, and one study did not provide information on the recruitment process. Among the studies, the number of home visits varied widely from one to thirty-three. The age of the children during the interventions ranged from less than 1 month (i.e., immediately after birth) to 24 months. Regarding the method, NBO administration was used in nine studies, NBAS in one study, AG in five studies, both AG and NBO in two studies, and finally, a combination of the three administrations of AG, NBO, and NBAS with other approaches described above in three studies.
The following sections review existing studies focusing on the main improvements in children, parents, and home visitors associated with different HV programs based on the Brazelton approach (research question 1), variation in outcomes by different categories of at-risk families (research question 2), and general characteristics of existing research studies on these programs (research question 3).
Children outcomes
Results on the impact of the Brazelton approach on children’s adjustment are mixed (see Table 1). Available studies have focused primarily on four areas: immunization rate and the child’s motor, cognitive, and social development. Motor development included gross motor skills assessed with the Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI [26]) and locomotor development assessed with the Schedule of Growing Skills II (SGS-2 [27]). Cognitive development included language skills such as vocabulary measured with the Communicative Development Inventory [28], perception/concepts and attention/memory measured with the BDI [26], and speech and language measured with the SGS-2 [27]. Social development included social-emotional, communication, cooperation, and interaction skills. Socio-emotional skills were measured with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire Social-Emotional scale [29]. The BDI Communication and Personal-Social scale [26] was used to examine communication skills. Cooperation skills were measured with the CARE-Index Cooperativeness scale [30], whereas interaction skills were measured with the SGS-2 Interactive/Social scores [27].
In one quasi-experimental study by Soares [31], the application of AG in HV was associated with greater motor development in children. Three experimental studies have tested the impact of NBO on social development [32,33,34]. Two of these [32, 33] found no differences between experimental and control samples, whereas the third [34] reported significantly higher cooperation scores in experimental samples. A large cluster randomized study using the NBO [35] and two quasi-experimental studies using the NBAS [36] and the AG [31] found no significant differences in social development between children of parents who received the Brazelton program and those who did not.
Four studies have reported cognitive improvement in children of parents who received a Brazelton intervention. Specifically, the application of AG in US samples was found to be significantly associated with higher vocabulary levels in two quasi-experimental studies [25, 37] and with higher perception/concept and attention/memory scores in an experimental study [25]. In a US experimental study, the application of NBO was associated with improvements in cognitive performance related to perception/concept and attention/memory [32]. In contrast, in a quasi-experimental study conducted in Portugal [31] and an experimental study conducted in Australia [33], no significant differences were reported in scores related to language and cognition. Finally, the application of AG was significantly associated with improvements in immunization rates in one experimental and two quasi-experimental studies conducted in the USA [25, 37].
Mothers’ psychological outcomes
The available studies have mainly focused on three types of psychological outcomes of mothers: satisfaction with the intervention, confidence (e.g., resilience, self-esteem, and security), and psychopathology (e.g., depression and anxiety) (see Table 2). Of three studies [31, 38, 39], only one reported that mothers who received the Brazelton approach reported higher levels of satisfaction than those in control groups [31]. In these studies, satisfaction is not a part of the intervention process, but an outcome of the interventions in which the experimental groups were compared with control groups that received another active intervention or observation by a health care provider.
Regarding confidence, four studies [22, 25, 37] showed that mothers receiving the Brazelton approach had higher perceived resilience and self-esteem than those in the control groups. In contrast, three studies [21, 33, 36] found no significant differences in self-esteem and self-confidence. Finally, regarding psychopathology, a distinction must be made between studies using clinical and community samples. Some studies have used the Brazelton approach with mothers at risk for postpartum depression. Some of these studies used an NBO intervention [32, 33, 40, 41], while others used an integrated approach including AG and NBO [21, 22]. Overall, two randomized control trials [32, 41] and one quasi-experimental study [22] showed that mothers at risk for postpartum depression had reduced depressive symptoms after a Brazelton intervention. However, two experimental studies did not find the same significant differences [21, 33]. Of these two, while one study showed no differences between experimental and control groups in anxiety symptoms among depressed mothers [21], the other one that included mothers with depression or anxiety symptoms showed that receiving an NBO program significantly reduced mothers’ anxiety levels but not depression [33]. Among studies that did not use clinical samples, one experimental study [35] and one quasi-experimental study [39] found no differences between mothers in the experimental and control groups on any outcome (i.e., depressive symptoms, satisfaction, stress, and self-confidence).
Mother-infant interaction outcomes
Studies examining the mother-infant relationship have consistently shown a positive impact of HV Brazelton programs on several outcomes, some of which we have categorized into knowledge, sensitivity, and resources. Outcomes related to knowledge include mothers’ knowledge, interest, and awareness of resources for their babies and early childhood care skills. Sensitivity characterizes mothers’ sensitivity to their relationship with their children in terms of reciprocity, availability, attachment quality, responsiveness, and emotional involvement. Finally, resources indicate the identification of environmental resources that can foster children’s development (see Table 3).
Regarding the findings related to knowledge, most studies reported that mothers who received a Brazelton intervention increased their knowledge about their children compared to mothers in control groups [25, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40]. However, in only one study was the receipt of the Brazelton program significantly associated with a decrease in mothers’ curiosity and interest in interpreting children’s mental states [42].
Seven studies measured sensitivity outcomes and presented mixed results. Specifically, two studies reported that Brazelton interventions were associated with increased responsiveness [23] and sensitivity [31]. However, five studies [21, 34, 36, 39, 40] found no significant improvements in mother-infant relationships, sensitivity/reciprocity, emotional availability, and attachment quality.
Finally, very few studies have analyzed resource-related outcomes. Receiving a Brazelton intervention helped parents meet family needs, obtain resources [25, 37], and identify appropriate learning materials [23].
Home visitor outcomes
We identified four studies that evaluated the impact of the Brazelton approach on home visitors (see Table 4). In one study [43], home visitors who used AG were more satisfied with supervision and more confident in their practice. Two experimental studies showed mixed results. McManus and Nugent [44] showed that home visitors, after using the NBO approach on infants with developmental delays, reported increased confidence but not increased knowledge about infants, as assessed by the Index of Practitioner Knowledge and Skills Scale. In contrast, Kristensen et al. [45] showed that home visitors using the NBO approach had significantly higher knowledge of infant self-regulation and intention, but not higher self-efficacy in working with early parent-infant relationships.
Discussion
This scoping review summarizes the results of 19 studies on the impact of Brazelton home visiting (HV) intervention on child development, mothers’ psychological well-being, mother-infant relationships, and home visitors’ satisfaction.
Overall, there is no clear picture regarding the impact of the Brazelton approach on children’s development. Studies with the highest Jadad scores (i.e., randomized, single-blind studies reporting sample retention rates) have suggested that AG has a positive impact on the cognitive development and immunization level of children in low SES and ethnic minority families [25]. In families who received the NBO approach, no improvement was found in children with depressed and anxious mothers [33]. However, improvement in cognitive development was found when children had a developmental delay in addition to depressed mothers [32].
Results on the impact of the Brazelton program on maternal psychological variables are also mixed. It is worth noting that, according to the studies with the highest Jadad scores, the Brazelton approach was associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms in samples of mothers at risk for postpartum depression who had children with developmental delay [32], but not in families with no risk factors [35, 39] or where the only risk factor was maternal depression [21, 33]. These findings are partially consistent with the meta-analytic results of Barlow and colleagues [17] who found no evidence of the impact of the Brazelton program on maternal depression. One might speculate that the impact of the Brazelton approach on maternal depression would be more detectable using a sample of families where both mothers and children are vulnerable.
Consistent evidence was reported in all the studies that the Brazelton approach increases parents’ knowledge about their children [25, 33, 35, 37, 39]. Indeed, in Brazelton’s perspective, both NBO and AG have the main purpose of educating parents about the peculiarities of their children’s developmental stages [11]. Interestingly, Erlingsdóttir’s study [42] reported a significant decrease, among mothers who received the Brazelton program, in curiosity and interest in interpreting their children’s mental states. However, interest and curiosity were measured using items such as I wonder a lot about what my child is thinking and feeling. It could be speculated that this item measures, rather than interests, parents’ doubts about their children’s behaviors. These doubts generally decrease as parents’ knowledge about their children improves. Therefore, it is likely that the Brazelton program, by promoting parents’ knowledge, may decrease their doubts about their children [46].
Contrary to expectations that increased knowledge of infants would be associated with increased parental sensitivity and confidence in their caregiving skills, no clear impact of the Brazelton approach on the sensitivity and emotionality of the mother-infant relationship could be identified. This is consistent with the mixed findings described above about the associations between the Brazelton intervention and the children’s socio-emotional development. Future studies could investigate whether maternal sensitivity and responsiveness could involve aspects of the relationship that would be less likely to be modified than mere knowledge of the infant.
Finally, available studies have reported that the Brazelton approach was significantly associated with the identification of family resources that can help children’s development (e.g., non-profit local organizations that can provide play and learning materials or offer social services). However, only three studies have examined this association [23, 25, 37] and only one was randomized and single-blind [25]. Future studies on this line of research are therefore recommended.
Methodologically, more consensus is needed regarding how to measure the impact of the Brazelton HV approach. Inconsistency in findings among studies can be attributed to common method biases as already suggested by Barlow and colleagues in their review and meta-analysis [17]. For example, the use of different measures assessing similar constructs and the varying number of home visits across studies (from one to thirty-three) would generate different and incomparable results. In addition, given that multiple home visits may be costly, identifying the optimal number of home visits to produce improvements in parenting and child development in different at-risk and non-at-risk targets could have considerable economic implications on how best to leverage this type of intervention. For the same reasons, the association between the duration of home visits and the effectiveness of the intervention needs to be clarified.
Although existing research makes a valuable contribution to understanding the impact of the Brazelton approach, other methodological inconsistencies among studies lead to caution in interpreting the results. For example, there is variability in the presence of participant risk characteristics among studies, some studies did not use an experimental research design, and others were limited by small sample sizes. Therefore, to strengthen confidence in the benefits associated with the Brazelton program, more studies with a consistent methodological approach to the selection of participant risk characteristics, research design, duration and number of home visits, and measures are needed. Only six studies presented in this paper were described as randomized and single-blinded and reported a description of withdrawals and dropouts. More studies that limit factors such as placebo effects or selection bias are needed to shed further light on the reported mixed results regarding the effectiveness of the Brazelton approach.
Another major area where further research is needed is a more thorough examination of the impact of the Brazelton approach in combination with other approaches. For example, among the studies reviewed, the use of AG in combination with other approaches was associated with lower depression and anxiety, higher self-esteem [22], greater knowledge about the appropriate learning materials for the children, and greater parental responsiveness [23]. These results highlight the need to create a more precise and standardized HV program based on the Brazelton approach, specifying the use, extent, and timing of NBO, AG, and NBAS interventions and specific integrations of other approaches. Therefore, the inclusion of studies based on integrated approaches is a limitation of the review, as studies based on integrated approaches do not allow us to distinguish the relevance of the specific Brazelton program.
The research findings collected help underscore the importance of research on preventive interventions such as the Brazelton HV programs. Specifically, this review aims to provide researchers and practitioners with valuable information to consider in their research, prevention, and intervention activities aimed at improving family well-being. Although HV programs may have an excessive cost, in the long run, these programs would be cost-effective for public spending: They could prevent future psychopathological sequelae and enable parents and their children to achieve greater well-being, resulting in reduced access to social services and healthcare [47].
Abbreviations
- BDI:
-
Battelle Developmental Inventory
- SGS:
-
Schedule of Growing Skills
- HV:
-
Home visiting
- IA:
-
Integrated approaches
- NBAS:
-
Newborn Behavioral Assessment Scale
- NBO:
-
Newborn Behavioral Observations system
- PRISMA:
-
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
- SES:
-
Socioeconomic status
References
Guterman NB (2001) Stopping child maltreatment before it starts: emerging horizons in early home visitation services. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
Jeong J, Franchett EE, Ramos de Oliveira CV et al (2021) Parenting interventions to promote early child development in the first three years of life: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 18:e1003602. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003602
Davis EP, Narayan AJ (2020) Pregnancy as a period of risk, adaptation, and resilience for mothers and infants. Dev Psychopathol 32:1625–1639. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420001121
Denmark N, Peplinski K, Sparr M et al (2018) Introduction to the special issue on taking home visiting to scale: findings from the maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting program state-led evaluations. Matern Child Health J 22:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2539-5
Hossain M, Akers L, Del Grosso P et al (2020) Touchpoints for addressing substance use issues in home visiting: expanded executive summary of phase 1 final report. https://www.acf.hhs.gov. Retrieved 14 Nov 2022
Casillas KL, Fauchier A, Derkash BT, Garrido EF (2016) Implementation of evidence-based home visiting programs aimed at reducing child maltreatment: a meta-analytic review. Child Abuse Negl 53:64–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.009
Tazza C, Bove G, Pallini S (2022) Efficacy of a Brazelton home-visiting program: a single-case subject analysis. Minerva Pediatri. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5276.22.06679-4
Cho H, Lee K, Choi E et al (2022) Association between social support and postpartum depression. Sci Rep 12:3128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07248-7
Easterbrooks MA, Fauth RC, Lamoreau R (2021) Effects of a home visiting program on parenting: mediating role of intimate partner violence. J Interpers Violence 36:NP803–NP823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517736879
National Home-visiting Resource Center (2021) Home Visiting Yearbook. James Bell Associates and the Urban Institute
Brazelton TB, Sparrow J (2003) Calming your fussy baby: the Brazelton way. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge MA
Brazelton TB, Cramer BG (2018) The earliest relationship. Routledge, London, UK
Brazelton TB (1975) Anticipatory Guidance. Pediatr Clin North Am 22:533–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-3955(16)33167-4
Sparrow J, Berry Brazelton T (2018) Guidance anticipative lors des consultations pédiatriques des trois premières années : le modèle Touchpoints (moments clés) du développement. Devenir 30:281–289. https://doi.org/10.3917/dev.183.0281
Hornstein J (2014) Brazelton’s neurodevelopmental and relational touchpoints and infant mental health. In: Brandt K, Perry BD, Selingman S, Tronik E (eds) Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health, Core Concepts and Clinical Practice. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, pp 71–83
Dittz ES, Alves CRL, Duarte ED, Magalhães LDC (2017) Contribution of the Newborn Behavioral Observations (NBO) for the maternal care of preterm neonates. J Hum Growth Dev 27:262–271. https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.125522
Barlow J, Herath NI, Bartram Torrance C et al (2018) The Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) and Newborn Behavioral Observations (NBO) system for supporting caregivers and improving outcomes in caregivers and their infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD011754. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011754.pub2
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C et al (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 18:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Goodman JH, Prager J, Goldstein R, Freeman M (2015) Perinatal dyadic psychotherapy for postpartum depression: a randomized controlled pilot trial. Arch Womens Ment Health 18:493–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-014-0483-y
Goodman JH, Guarino AJ, Prager JE (2013) Perinatal dyadic psychotherapy: design, implementation, and acceptability. J Fam Nurs 19:295–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840713484822
Guthrie KF, Gaziano C, Gaziano EP (2009) Toward better beginnings: enhancing healthy child development and parent-child relationships in a high-risk population. Home Health Care Manag Pract 21:99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1084822308322650
Jadad AR, Andrew Moore R, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
Zajicek-Farber ML (2010) Building practice evidence for parent mentoring home visiting in early childhood. Res Soc Work Pract 20:46–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509333172
Bliss SL (2007) Test Reviews: Newborg, J. (2005). Battelle Developmental Inventory−Second Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside. J Psychoeduc Assess 25:409–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282907300382
Bellman M, Lingam S, Aukett A (1996) SGS II - Schedule of Growing Skills: reference manual. NFER Nelson, London, UK
Fenson L, Pethick S, Renda C et al (2000) Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Appl Psycholinguist 21:95–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400001053
Squires J, Bricker D, Twombly E (2002) Ages & stages questionnaires: social-emotional, vol 2. Brookes Publishing Company, Baltimore, MD, Paul H
Crittenden PM (2007) Infant/Toddler Care-Index Coding Manuals. Family Relations Institute (unpublished), Miami Florida
Soares HM (2016) The contribution of nursing intervention in the study of touchpoints model’s efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Porto
McManus BM, Blanchard Y, Murphy NJ, Nugent JK (2020) The effects of the Newborn Behavioral Observations (NBO) system in early intervention: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Infant Ment Health J 41:757–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21882
Nicolson S, Carron SP, Paul C (2022) Supporting early infant relationships and reducing maternal distress with the Newborn Behavioral Observations: a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Infant Ment Health J 43:455–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21987
Nugent JK, Bartlett JD, Von Ende A, Valim C (2017) The Effects of the Newborn Behavioral Observations (NBO) system on sensitivity in mother–infant interactions. Infants Young Child 30:257–268. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000103
Kristensen IH, Juul S, Kronborg H (2020) What are the effects of supporting early parenting by newborn behavioral observations (NBO)? A cluster randomised trial. BMC Psychol 8:107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00467-5
Killough RH (2004) The birth of parenting: Maternal representations, the place of the infant, and the development of sensitive caring (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Massachusetts Amherst
Zajicek-Farber ML (2009) Parent mentoring and child Anticipatory Guidance with Latino and African American families. Health Soc Work 34:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/34.3.179
McManus BM, Nugent JK (2014) A neurobehavioral intervention incorporated into a state early intervention program is associated with higher perceived quality of care among parents of high-risk newborns. J Behav Health Serv Res 41:381–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-012-9283-1
Høifødt RS, Nordahl D, Landsem IP et al (2020) Newborn Behavioral Observation, maternal stress, depressive symptoms and the mother-infant relationship: results from the Northern Babies Longitudinal Study (NorBaby). BMC Psychiatry 20:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02669-y
Greve RA, Braarud HC, Skotheim S, Slinning K (2018) Feasibility and acceptability of an early home visit intervention aimed at supporting a positive mother-infant relationship for mothers at risk of postpartum depression. Scand J Caring Sci 32:1437–1446. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12589
Nugent JK, Bartlett JD, Valim C (2014) Effects of an infant-focused relationship-based hospital and home visiting intervention on reducing symptoms of postpartum maternal depression. Infants Young Child 27:292–304. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000017
Erlingsdóttir S (2019) The effects of the Newborn Behavioural Observation approach on mothers’ curiosity and interest in interpreting their infants’ mental states (unpublished dissertation). University of Reykjavik
Forstadt L (2012) Home visiting and reflective practice: when systems change means practice change. Reflective Pract 13:97–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.626023
McManus BM, Nugent JK (2011) Feasibility study of early intervention provider confidence following a neurobehavioural intervention for high-risk newborns. J Reprod Infant Psychol 29:395–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2011.623228
Kristensen IH, Vinter M, Nickell IK, Kronborg H (2019) Health visitors’ competences before and after implementing the newborn behavioral observations (NBO) system in a community setting: a cluster randomised study. Public Health Nurs 36:856–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12658
Gaziano C (2012) Antecedents of knowledge gaps: Parenting knowledge and early childhood cognitive development-review and call for research. Open Communication J 6:17–28
Goetzel RZ (2009) Do prevention or treatment services save money? The wrong debate. Health Aff 28:37–41. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.37
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi Roma Tre within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CT conceptualized and designed the study, conducted and oversaw the review of abstracts and papers, conducted the initial library database search, and drafted the initial manuscript. SI supervised CT, wrote portions of the manuscript, handled final submission processes, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. SP conducted background literature searches, wrote portions of the manuscript, reviewed abstracts and papers, supervised CT, and reviewed and revised the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Ethical approval is not applicable.
Consent to participate
Informed consent is not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Peter de Winter
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tazza, C., Ioverno, S. & Pallini, S. Home-visiting programs based on the Brazelton approach: a scoping review. Eur J Pediatr 182, 3469–3479 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-023-05048-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-023-05048-3