Social & Economic Factors Education Employment Income Family & Social Support Community Safety Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Birthing Project USA

Health Factors: Family & Social Support
Decision Makers: Community Organizations
Evidence Rating: Expert Opinion
Population Reach: 10-19% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: Likely to decrease disparities

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

The Birthing Project is a volunteer effort, primarily targeted at women of color, to encourage better birth outcomes by providing one-on-one support and education to women during their pregnancy through volunteer Sister/Friends. The Birthing Project's Barber Shop targets fathers within the same communities.

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Improved birth outcomes
Improved maternal health
Increased use of preventive services

Evidence of Effectiveness

The Birthing Project is a suggested strategy to improve birth outcomes, primarily among women of color (Cruz 2008). Available evidence suggests that the program may have positive effects on birth weight (Maddox-Whitehead 2008, Robilliard 2005), infant mortality (Maddox-Whitehead 2008), and consistency of prenatal and postnatal care (Hall-Trujillo 2010). Additional evidence is needed to confirm effects. 

In summer 2012 the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) plans to evaluate the Birthing Project USA Sister/Friends program compared to traditional home visits' effect on changing behaviors caused by internalized racism (HRSA-Internship 2012).

Implementation Examples

United States

As of March 2012, there were 101 Birthing Projects across the world (BP USA).

Implementation Resources

BP USA - Birthing Project USA. Program description and model programs. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.birthingprojectusa.org/intro.html

Citations - Evidence

Cruz 2008 - Cruz E, Guhleman P, Onheiber PM. Wisconsin healthy birth outcomes: Minority health program challenges and contributions. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2008;14(Suppl):S58-64. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/committees/study/2010/mort/files/sept08_healthybirths_mort.pdf
Hall-Trujillo 2010 - Hall-Trujillo K. The underground railroad for new life: Improving outcomes for mothers and babies of african descent. Innovations. 2010;5(3):53–68. Accessed on June 20, 2012
Webpage: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/INOV_a_00027
HRSA-Internship 2012 - Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Maternal and Child Health Information Resource Center graduate student internship program: 2012 internship program. Accessed on October 30, 2012
Webpage: http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/researchdata/mchirc/gsip/forms/gsipcatalog12.pdf
Maddox-Whitehead 2008 - Maddox-Whitehead LQ. Birthing project - Nashville. Nashville: Metro Public Health Department, Nashville/Davidson County; 2008. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.birthingprojectusa.org/projecteval.html
Robilliard 2005 - Robilliard TE. The kindness of strangers: Family-based early intervention and improved outcomes for children. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. 2005;(26):131-55. Accessed on June 20, 2012
Webpage: http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj26/26-family-based-early-intervention-and-improved-outcomes-for-children-pages131-155.html

Citations - Implementation Examples

BP USA - Birthing Project USA. Program description and model programs. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.birthingprojectusa.org/intro.html

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities