The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Community mothers' programme: randomised controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE--To see whether non-professional volunteer community mothers could deliver a child development programme to disadvantaged first time mothers for children aged up to 1 year. DESIGN--Randomised controlled trial. SETTING--A regional health authority in Dublin. SUBJECTS--262 first time mothers who were delivered during six months in 1989 and who lived in a deprived area of Dublin; 30 experienced mothers from the same community recruited as community mothers. INTERVENTIONS--All the first time mothers received standard support from the public health nurse. In addition, those in the intervention group received the services of a community mother, who was scheduled to visit monthly during the first year of the child's life. RESULTS--232 (89%) first time mothers completed the study--127 in the intervention group, 105 controls. At the end of the study children in the intervention group were more likely to have received all of their primary immunisations, to be read to, and to be read to daily, played more cognitive games; and were exposed to more nursery rhymes. They were less likely to begin cows' milk before 26 weeks and to receive an inappropriate energy intake and inappropriate amounts of animal protein, non-animal protein, wholefoods, vegetables, fruit, and milk. Mothers in the intervention group also had a better diet than controls. At the end of the study they were less likely to be tired, feel miserable, and want to stay indoors; had more positive feelings; and were less likely to display negative feelings. CONCLUSION--Non-professionals can deliver a health promotion programme on child development effectively. Whether they can do so as effectively as professionals requires further study.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Meta-analytic Review of Components Associated with Parent Training Program Effectiveness
Wyatt Kaminski, J., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9 · Cited by 1,721
Lassi, Z. S., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007754.pub3 · Cited by 579
Lay health workers in primary and community health care
Lewin, S., Dick, J., Pond, P., Zwarenstein, M., Aja, G. N., van Wyk, B. E., Bosch-Capblanch, X., & Patrick, M. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004015.pub2 · Cited by 544
O’Mara-Eves, A., Brunton, G., McDaid, D., Oliver, S., Kavanagh, J., Jamal, F., Matosevic, T., Harden, A., & Thomas, J. (2013) · Public Health Research · doi:10.3310/phr01040 · Cited by 438
Effectiveness of home visiting programs on child outcomes: a systematic review
Peacock, S., Konrad, S., Watson, E., Nickel, D., & Muhajarine, N. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-17 · Cited by 392
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, Z., Howell, F., & Molloy, B.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1993-05-29
- Volume
- 306
- Issue
- 6890
- Pages
- 1449-1452
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1975370616
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Community mothers' programme: randomised controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1449
- The paper
- Johnson, Z., Howell, F., & Molloy, B. (1993). Community mothers' programme: randomised controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1449
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.