Umeå University's logo

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the health and economic outcomes of a universal early intervention for parents and children, the Salut Programme, from birth to when the child completed five years of age.

Methods: This study adopted a retrospective observational design using routinely collected linked register data with respect to both exposures and outcomes from Västerbotten county, in northern Sweden. Making use of a natural experiment, areas that received care-as-usual (non-Salut area) were compared to areas where the Programme was implemented after 2006 (Salut area) in terms of: (i) health outcomes, healthcare resource use and costs around pregnancy, delivery and birth, and (ii) healthcare resource use and related costs, as well as costs of care of sick child. We estimated total cumulative costs related to inpatient and specialised outpatient care for mothers and children, and financial benefits paid to mothers to stay home from work to care for a sick child. Two analyses were conducted: a matched difference-in difference analysis using the total sample and an analysis including a longitudinal subsample.

Results: The longitudinal analysis on mothers who gave birth in both pre- and post-measure periods showed that mothers exposed to the Programme had on average 6% (95% CI 3–9%) more full-term pregnancies and 2% (95% CI 0.03-3%) more babies with a birth weight ≥ 2500 g, compared to mothers who had care-as-usual. Savings were incurred in terms of outpatient care costs for children of mothers in the Salut area ($826). The difference-in-difference analysis using the total sample did not result in any significant differences in health outcomes or cumulative resource use over time.

Conclusions: The Salut Programme achieved health gains, as a health promotion early intervention for children and parents, in terms of more full-term pregnancies and more babies with a birth weight ≥ 2500 g, at reasonable cost, and may lead to lower usage of outpatient care. Other indicators point towards positive effects, but the small sample size may have led to underestimation of true differences.