Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Aug 21;2(3):516-536.
doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.516. eCollection 2015.

Access to Difficult-to-reach Population Subgroups: A Family Midwife Based Home Visiting Service for Implementing Nutrition-related Preventive Activities - A Mixed Methods Explorative Study

Affiliations

Access to Difficult-to-reach Population Subgroups: A Family Midwife Based Home Visiting Service for Implementing Nutrition-related Preventive Activities - A Mixed Methods Explorative Study

Helena Walz et al. AIMS Public Health. .

Abstract

Health and social inequality are tightly linked and still pose an important public health problem. However, vulnerable and disadvantaged populations are difficult to reach for health-related interventions. Given the long-lasting effects of an adverse, particular nutrition-related, intrauterine and neonatal environment on health development (perinatal programming), an early and easy access is essential for sustainable interventions. The goal of this explorative study was therefore to elucidate whether an existing access of family midwives (FMs) to families in need of support could be an option to implement effective public health and nutrition interventions. To that end three research objectives were formulated: (1) to determine whether a discernible impact of home visits by FMs can be described; (2) to identify subgroups among these families in need of more specific interventions; (3) to determine how relevant nutrition-related topics are for both FMs and the supported families. For addressing these objectives a mixed methods design was used: Routine documentation data from 295 families visited by a family midwife (FM) were analyzed (secondary analysis), and structured expert interviews with FMs were conducted and analyzed. Study reporting followed the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) statement. Based on the FMs reports, a significant improvement (p < 0.001) regarding psycho-social variables could be determined after the home visits. Single mothers, however, seemed to benefit less from the FMs service compared to their counterparts (p = 0.015). Nutritional counseling was demanded by 89% of the families during the home visits. In addition, nutrition-related topics were reported in the interviews to be of high interest to both families and the FMs. Based on the obtained results it is concluded that FMs home visits offer a promising access to vulnerable and disadvantaged families for implementing nutrition-related preventive activities.

Keywords: child health services; family research; health inequality; home visiting services; midwifery; perinatal programming; public health; socioeconomic factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flowchart of the convergent mixed methods design (according to Creswell et al. 2010 [74])
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Categories of change in problem score values, stratified by partnership status, Early Prevention Project (n = 295)a
a Missing values: n = 17 for change problem score; n = 2 for living in a partnership. b Test for differences between partnership status for change problem score based on the Chi-Square-Test for categorical variables.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dalstra J. Socioeconomic differences in the prevalence of common chronic diseases: an overview of eight European countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(2):316–326. - PubMed
    1. Berkman LF. Social Epidemiology: Social Determinants of Health in the United States: Are We Losing Ground? Annu Rev Publ Health. 2009;30(1):27–41. - PubMed
    1. Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, et al. Socioeconomic Disparities in Health in the United States: What the Patterns Tell Us. Am J Publ Health. 2010;100(S1):S186. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Friel S, Marmot MG. Action on the Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequities Goes Global. Annu Rev Publ Health. 2011;32(1):225–36. - PubMed
    1. Bleich SN, Jarlenski MP, Bell CN, et al. Health Inequalities: Trends, Progress, and Policy. Annu Rev Publ Health. 2012;33(1):7–40. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources