Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Sign up for MCHalert eNewsletter

Established Evidence Results

Results for Keyword:

Below are articles that support specific interventions to advance MCH National Performance Measures (NPMs) and Standardized Measures (SMs). Most interventions contain multiple components as part of a coordinated strategy/approach.

You can filter by intervention component below and sort to refine your search.

Start a New Search


Displaying records 1 through 3 (3 total).

Bastani R, Berman BA, Belin TR, et al. Increasing cervical cancer screening among underserved women in a large urban county health system: can it be done? What does it take? Med Care. 2002;40(10):891-907.

Evidence Rating: Emerging Evidence

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Education, Provider Audit/Practice Audit, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Designated Clinic/Extended Hours

Intervention Description: Evaluation of a 5-year demonstration project testing a multicomponent (provider, system, and patient) intervention to increase cervical cancer screening among women who receive their health care through the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, the second largest County Health Department in the nation.

Intervention Results: At the Hospital and Comprehensive Health Center (CHC) levels a statistically significant intervention effect was observed after controlling for baseline screening rates and case mix. No intervention effect was observed at the Public Health Center (PHC) level.

Conclusion: An intensive multicomponent intervention can increase cervical cancer screening in a large, urban, County health system serving a low-income minority population of under screened women.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group

Setting: Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LACDHS) facilities: 2 large hospitals, 2 feeder Comprehensive Health Centers, and 6 of the health center’s feeder Public Health Centers

Population of Focus: Women attending LACDHS facilities

Data Source: Medical records and computerized databases held by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

Sample Size: Total (N=18,642) Intervention (n=9,492); Control (n=9,150) Baseline (n=5,249) Year 2 (n=5,470) Year 3 (n=5,365) First 6 months of Year 4 (n=2,558)

Age Range: ≥18

Access Abstract

Byrnes P, McGoldrick C, Crawford M, Peers M. Cervical screening in general practice - strategies for improving participation. Aust Fam Physician. 2007;36(3):183-4, 192.

Evidence Rating: Emerging Evidence

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Audit/Practice Audit, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner

Intervention Description: To assess the effects on cervical screening rates in one small general practice based on uptake and the benefits of multiple strategies.

Intervention Results: Over 18 months there was a 27% improvement from a biannual screening rate of 53% at baseline to 67.5% at the end of the audit. Over the past 6 months, 49% of women elected for the 'screening only' test provided by a nurse.

Conclusion: Strategies are feasible and associated with a considerable increase in screening rates. Patients can choose to have their test performed by a nurse in general practice. This study suggests that each strategy's improvement in uptake is independently additive.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest

Setting: General practice in Bundaberg, Queensland

Population of Focus: Women attending the practice living within Bundaberg

Data Source: Chart review

Sample Size: Baseline (n=1,540) Follow-up (n=1,431)

Age Range: 18-69

Access Abstract

Kroger, A. T., Duchin, J., & Vázquez, M. (2018). General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunization: Best Practices Guidance of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Childhood Vaccination NPM]

Evidence Rating: Moderate

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): Provider Audit/Practice Audit, Policy/Guideline (Hospital),

Intervention Description: The interventions included correcting physician, nurse, and parent assumptions regarding HepB vaccination, standardizing the process of providing the vaccine, and establishing vaccine receipt at birth as the normative standard.

Intervention Results: The study demonstrated a significant increase in newborn HepB vaccination rates at the time of hospital discharge and within the first 12 hours of life.

Conclusion: Multidisciplinary collaboration, scripting, and provider and staff education regarding the risks of hepatitis B virus, benefits of HepB vaccine, and strategies to discuss HepB vaccination with parents significantly increased vaccination rates. Further efforts to improve vaccination rates to within 12 hours are preferable.

Study Design: - Study design: The study used a quality improvement intervention design.

Setting: The study was conducted in the mother-baby unit (MBU) of a tertiary urban medical center.

Population of Focus: The target audience was healthcare professionals, including physicians and nurses, as well as parents of newborns. - Sample size: The study included 1,000 newborns.

Sample Size: The study included 1,000 newborns.

Age Range: The study focused on newborns receiving the hepatitis B vaccine at birth.

Access Abstract

The MCH Digital Library is one of six special collections at Geogetown University, the nation's oldest Jesuit institution of higher education. It is supported in part by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under award number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy with an award of $700,000/year. The library is also supported through foundation and univerity funding. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.