Home visiting programs have been found to improve parenting practices and to reduce negative child outcomes. The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) resulted in an abrupt transition to telehealth services for many home visiting services. Limited research has examined the impacts of delivering home visiting services via telehealth, and the effects of this abrupt transition during COVID-19 is understudied as well. This study examined the impact of the abrupt transition to telehealth as a result of COVID-19 on home visiting service provision in one mid-sized midwestern community from the perspective of clients and providers. We conducted semi-structured interviews with both home visiting clients and providers (N = 26) in prevention-focused home visiting services. Although some benefits to telehealth were reported, providers discussed challenges with regard to engaging clients in services and difficulties in completing important home visiting tasks (i.e., assessment of child development, teaching parent-child interaction). Providers and clients also noted that they missed face-to-face interactions. Effective use of telehealth in home visiting requires provision of devices that allow for video-chatting as well as development of effective methods to engage in observation and teaching tasks.
AlaviN.StephensonC.RiveraM. (2021). Effectiveness of delivering dialectical behavioral therapy techniques by email in patients with borderline personality disorder: nonrandomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 8(4), Article e27308. https://doi.org/10.2196/27308
2.
Azzi-LessingL. (2011). Home visitation programs: Critical issues and future directions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(4), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECRESQ.2011.03.005
3.
DamashekA.BardD.HechtD. (2012). Provider cultural competency, client satisfaction, and engagement in home-based programs to treat child abuse and neglect. Child Maltreatment, 17(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559511423570
4.
DamashekA.KothariC.BermanA.ChahinS.LutzkerJ.GuastaferroK.WhitakerD. J.ShanleyJ.Self-BrownS. (2020). Engagement in home visiting services during the transition from pregnancy to postpartum: A prospective mixed methods pilot study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01641-z
5.
DeMauroS. B.DuncanA. F.HurtH. (2021). Telemedicine use in neonatal follow-up programs–What can we do and what we can't–Lessons learned from COVID-19. Seminars in Perinatology, 45(5), Article 151430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semperi.2021.151430
6.
FergusonJ. M.VanderpoolR. C. (2012). Impact of a Kentucky maternal, infant, and early childhood home-visitation program on parental risk factors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(4), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9610-4
7.
GirvinH.DePanfilisD.DainingC. (2007). Predicting program completion among families enrolled in a child neglect preventive intervention. Research on Social Work Practice Practice, 17(6), 674–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731507300285
8.
GoyalN. K.TeetersA.AmmermanR. T. (2013). Home visiting and outcomes of preterm infants: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 132(3), 502–516. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0077
9.
HardingK.GalanoJ.MartinJ.HuntingtonL.SchellenbachC. J. (2007). Healthy families America effectiveness: A comprehensive review of outcomes. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 34(1-2), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1300/J005v34n01_08
10.
HarozE. E.IngallsA.Decker SorbyK.DozierM.KayeM. P.SarcheM.SuppleeL. H.WhitakerD. J.GrubinF.DaroD.DaroD. (2022). Expert-generated standard practice elements for evidence-based home visiting programs using a Delphi process. PLoS One, 17(10), Article e0275981. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275981
11.
InouyeJ.CernyJ. E.HollandsworthJ.EttipioA. (2001). Child abuse prevention program with POTS-based telehealth: A feasibility project. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association, 7(4), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1089/15305620152814728
12.
JabaleyJ. J.LutzkerJ. R.WhitakerD. J.Self-BrownS. (2011). Using iPhones™ to enhance and reduce face-to-face home safety sessions within SafeCare®: An evidence-based child maltreatment prevention program. Journal of Family Violence, 26(5), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9372-6
13.
LangarizadehM.TabatabaeiM. S.TavakolK.NaghipourM.RostamiA.MoghbeliF. (2017). Telemental health care, an effective alternative to conventional mental care: A systematic review. Acta Informatica Medica: AIM: journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina: casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH, 25(4), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2017.25.240-246
14.
McCordC.UllrichF.MerchantK. A.BhagianadhD.CarterK. D.NelsonE.MarcinJ. P.LawK. B.NeufeldJ.GiovanettiA.WardM. M.WardM. M. (2022). Comparison of in-person vs. telebehavioral health outcomes from rural populations across America. BMC Psychiatry, 22(1), 778. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04421-0
15.
MogilC.HajalN.GarciaE.KiffC.PaleyB.MilburnN.LesterP. (2015). FOCUS for early childhood: A virtual home visiting program for military families with young children. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-015-9327-9
16.
MohrD. C.BurnsM. N.SchuellerS. M.ClarkeG.KlinkmanM. (2013). Behavioral intervention technologies: Evidence review and recommendations for future research in mental health. General Hospital Psychiatry, 35(4), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.03.008
17.
MorrisonK.HughesT.DoiL. (2022). Understanding the use of telehealth in the context of the family nurse partnership and other early years home visiting programmes: A rapid review. Digital Health, 8, 20552076221123711. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221123711
18.
OldsD. L. (2006). The nurse–family partnership: An evidence‐based preventive intervention. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20077
19.
OlsenS.FiechtlB.RuleS. (2012). An evaluation of virtual home visits in early intervention: Feasibility of “virtual intervention.”. Volta Review, 112(3), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.17955/tvr.112.3.m.702
20.
O'MahenH.HimleJ. A.FedockG.HenshawE.FlynnH. A. (2020). Cost-effectiveness of video-based online cognitive-behavioral therapy (e-COPE) for postnatal depression: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(4), Article e16527. https://doi.org/10.2196/16527
21.
RobenC. K.KippE.ScheinS. S.CostelloA. H.DozierM. (2022). Transitioning to telehealth due to COVID‐19: Maintaining model fidelity in a home visiting program for parents of vulnerable infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 43(1), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21963
22.
RosenbachM.O’NeilS.CookB.TrebinoL.WalkerK. (2010). Characteristics, access, utilization, satisfaction, and outcomes of healthy start participants in eight sites. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 14(5), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-009-0474-1
23.
RybińskaA.BestD. L.GoodmanW. B.WeindlingW.DodgeK. A. (2022). Home visiting services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Program activity analysis for Family Connects. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 26(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-021-03337-7
24.
ShonkoffJ. P.PhillipsD. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early child development. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9824
25.
SmithK.DaviesJ. (2010). Qualitative data analysis. Practical researcher and evaluation: A start-to finish guide for practitioners (pp. 145–158). Sage.
