You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
  • This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
  • Review
  • Open Access

31 December 2025

Home Visiting Interventions and Their Impact on Mental Health, Psychosocial, and Parenting Practice Outcomes of Vulnerable Caregivers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Psychiatry and Mental Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
2
South Western Sydney Local Health District & Ingham Institute, Academic Unit of Child Psychiatry (AUCS), Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia
3
Community Paediatrics, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia
4
Central Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
This article belongs to the Section Behavioral and Mental Health

Abstract

Past reviews have found home visiting interventions to be successful at improving caregiver outcomes. Though, no review has looked specifically at the effect of home visiting interventions on caregivers with high vulnerability and complex needs. This review aimed to examine and synthesis the literature on the impact of home visiting programs administered to caregivers with young children, high vulnerability and complex needs by professionals/paraprofessionals. Interdisciplinary databases, reference lists, and the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness database were searched for articles that fit the inclusion criteria. Together searches resulted in a total of 623 articles, 34 of these articles were included in the final review, all from high-income countries. Twenty-five interventions were implemented across the 34 studies. Findings showed that these interventions were effective at improving a range of mental health, parenting, and family violence outcomes in caregivers with high vulnerability and complex needs. However, weighted mean standardized effect sizes ranged from 0.01–0.24 (small effect), with only one (i.e., practical parenting skills) of the five significantly different from 0 (standardized mean difference 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.38; z = 3.39, p = 0.00) and results favoring the control group. Missing information together with considerable variation in interventions, meant that identifying a clear pattern in treatment components that lead to effective verses non-effective interventions was not possible. Further research is therefore needed to assess the effectiveness of these interventions. Trial registration: The University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42023460366.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.