Costs and consequences of the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme in England: evidence from the Building Blocks trial

Evaluating the real-world implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage study

Background/objectives

The Family Nurse Partnership is an intensive home visiting programme for adolescent mothers. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership on outcomes up to age 7 using national administrative data.

Design

We created a linked cohort of all mothers aged 13-19 using data from health, educational and children's social care and defined mothers enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership or not using Family Nurse Partnership system data. Propensity scores were used to create matched groups for analysis.

Setting

One hundred and thirty-six local authorities in England with active Family Nurse Partnership sites between 2010 and 2017.

Participants

Mothers aged 13-19 at last menstrual period with live births between April 2010 and March 2019, living in a Family Nurse Partnership catchment area and their firstborn child(ren).

Interventions

The Family Nurse Partnership includes up to 64 home visits by a family nurse from early pregnancy until the child's second birthday and is combined with usual health and social care. Controls received usual health and social care.

Main outcome measures

Indicators of child maltreatment (hospital admissions for injury/maltreatment, referral to social care services); child health and development (hospital utilisation and education) outcomes and maternal hospital utilisation and educational outcomes up to 7 years following birth.

Data sources

Family Nurse Partnership Information System, Hospital Episode Statistics, National Pupil Database.

Results

Of 110,520 eligible mothers, 25,680 (23.2%) were enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership. Enrolment rates varied across 122 sites (range: 11-68%). Areas with more eligible mothers had lower enrolment rates. Enrolment was higher among mothers aged 13-15 (52%), than 18-19 year-olds (21%). Indicators of child maltreatment: we found no evidence of an association between the Family Nurse Partnership and indicators of child maltreatment, except for an increased rate of unplanned admissions for maltreatment/injury-related diagnoses up to age 2 for children born to Family Nurse Partnership mothers (6.6% vs. 5.7%, relative risk 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.24). Child health and developmental outcomes: there was weak evidence that children born to Family Nurse Partnership mothers were more likely to achieve a Good Level of Development at age 5 (57.5% vs. 55.4%, relative risk 1.05; 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.09). Maternal outcomes: There was some evidence that Family Nurse Partnership mothers were less likely to have a subsequent delivery within 18 months of the index birth (8.4% vs. 9.3%, relative risk 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 0.97). Younger and more vulnerable mothers received higher numbers of visits and were more likely to achieve fidelity targets. Meeting the fidelity targets was associated with some outcomes.

Limitations

Bias by indication and variation in the intervention and usual care over time and between areas may have limited our ability to detect effects. Multiple testing may have led to spurious, significant results.

Conclusions

This study supports findings from evaluations of the Family Nurse Partnership showing no evidence of benefit for maltreatment outcomes measured in administrative data. Amongst all the outcomes measured, we found weak evidence that the Family Nurse Partnership was associated with improvements in child development at school entry, a reduction in rapid repeat pregnancies and evidence of increased healthcare-seeking in the mother and child.

Future work

Future evaluations should capture better measures of Family Nurse Partnership interventions and usual care, more information on maternal risk factors and additional outcomes relating to maternal well-being.

Study registration

The study is registered as NIHR CRN Portfolio (42900).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/19) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 11. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Characteristics of enrolment in an intensive home-visiting programme among eligible first-time adolescent mothers in England: a linked administrative data cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intensive home visiting for adolescent mothers may help reduce health disparities. Given limited resources, such interventions need to be effectively targeted. We evaluated which mothers were enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP), an intensive home-visiting service for first-time young mothers commissioned in >130 local authorities in England since 2007.

METHODS

We created a population-based cohort of first-time mothers aged 13-19 years giving birth in English National Health Service hospitals between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2017, using administrative hospital data linked with FNP programme, educational and social care data. Mothers living in a local authority with an active FNP site were eligible. We described variation in enrolment rates across sites, and identified maternal and FNP site characteristics associated with enrolment.

RESULTS

Of 110 520 eligible mothers, 25 680 (23.2% (95% CI: 23.0% to 23.5%)) were enrolled. Enrolment rates varied substantially across 122 sites (range: 11%-68%), and areas with greater numbers of first-time adolescent mothers achieved lower enrolment rates. Mothers aged 13-15 years were most likely to be enrolled (52%). However, only 26% of adolescent mothers with markers of vulnerability (including living in the most deprived areas and ever having been looked after as a child) were enrolled.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of first-time adolescent mothers with vulnerability markers were not enrolled in FNP. Variation in enrolment across sites indicates insufficient commissioning of places that is not proportional to level of need, with mothers in areas with large numbers of other adolescent mothers least likely to receive support.

The Good Behaviour Game intervention to improve behavioural and other outcomes for children aged 7–8 years: a cluster RCT

Background

Universal, school-based behaviour management interventions can produce meaningful improvements in children’s behaviour and other outcomes. However, the UK evidence base for these remains limited.

Objective

The objective of this trial was to investigate the impact, value for money and longer-term outcomes of the Good Behaviour Game. Study hypotheses centred on immediate impact (hypothesis 1); subgroup effects (at-risk boys, hypothesis 2); implementation effects (dosage, hypothesis 3); maintenance/sleeper effects (12- and 24-month post-intervention follow-ups, hypothesis 4); the temporal association between mental health and academic attainment (hypothesis 5); and the health economic impact of the Good Behaviour Game (hypothesis 6).

Design

This was a two-group, parallel, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary schools (n = 77) were randomly assigned to implement the Good Behaviour Game for 2 years or continue their usual practice, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period.

Setting

The trial was set in primary schools across 23 local authorities in England.

Participants

Participants were children (n = 3084) aged 7–8 years attending participating schools.

Intervention

The Good Behaviour Game is a universal behaviour management intervention. Its core components are classroom rules, team membership, monitoring behaviour and positive reinforcement. It is played alongside a normal classroom activity for a set time, during which children work in teams to win the game to access the agreed rewards. The Good Behaviour Game is a manualised intervention delivered by teachers who receive initial training and ongoing coaching.

Main outcome measures

The measures were conduct problems (primary outcome; teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); emotional symptoms (teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); psychological well-being, peer and social support, bullying (i.e. social acceptance) and school environment (self-report Kidscreen survey results); and school absence and exclusion from school (measured using National Pupil Database records). Measures of academic attainment (reading, standardised tests), disruptive behaviour, concentration problems and prosocial behaviour (Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist scores) were also collected during the 2-year follow-up period.

Results

There was no evidence that the Good Behaviour Game improved any outcomes (hypothesis 1). The only significant subgroup moderator effect identified was contrary to expectations: at-risk boys in Good Behaviour Game schools reported higher rates of bullying (hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of the amount of time spent playing the Good Behaviour Game was unclear; in the context of both moderate (≥ 1030 minutes over 2 years) and high (≥ 1348 minutes over 2 years) intervention compliance, there were significant reductions in children’s psychological well-being, but also significant reductions in their school absence (hypothesis 3). The only medium-term intervention effect was for peer and social support at 24 months, but this was in a negative direction (hypothesis 4). After disaggregating within- and between-individual effects, we found no temporal within-individual associations between children’s mental health and their academic attainment (hypothesis 5). Last, our cost–consequences analysis indicated that the Good Behaviour Game does not provide value for money (hypothesis 6).

Limitations

Limitations included the post-test-only design for several secondary outcomes; suboptimal implementation dosage (mitigated by complier-average causal effect estimation); and moderate child-level attrition (18.5% for the primary outcome analysis), particularly in the post-trial follow-up period (mitigated by the use of full information maximum likelihood procedures).

Future work

Questions remain regarding programme differentiation (e.g. how distinct is the Good Behaviour Game from existing behaviour management practices, and does this makes a difference in terms of its impact?) and if the Good Behaviour Game is impactful when combined with a complementary preventative intervention (as has been the case in several earlier trials).

Conclusion

The Good Behaviour Game cannot be recommended based on the findings reported here.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN64152096.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Economic evaluation methods used in home-visiting interventions: A systematic search and review

Home-visiting interventions are used to improve outcomes for families experiencing disadvantage. As scarce resources must be allocated carefully, appropriate methods are required to provide accurate information on the effect of these programmes. We aimed to investigate: economic evaluation/analysis methods used in home-visiting programmes for children, young people and families, study designs and methods suitable in situations where randomised-controlled-trials are not feasible, and type of costs included in analyses, including any implementation costs stated. A systematic search and review was conducted of existing full economic evaluation/analysis methods in home-visiting programmes for children, young people and/or families. We included studies published in English between January 2000 and mid-November 2020. Of the 4,742 papers sourced, 60 were retained for full-text review, and 21 included. Economic-analysis methods found in the included studies were: within trial economic evaluation, economic evaluation using decision analytic modelling (i.e. cost-utility, cost-benefit analysis), cost comparison and cost-consequence. Studies incorporating return on investment and budget impact analysis were also found. Study designs suitable when randomisation was not feasible included parallel cluster randomised trials and using pre-post intervention data. Costs depended mainly on study context and only one study reported implementation costs. We hope this information will help guide future economic evaluations of home-visiting interventions.