Child maltreatment is a significant public health problem best addressed through evidence-based parent-support programs. There is a wide range of programs with different strengths offering a variety of options for families. Choosing one single evidence-based program often limits the range of services available to meet the unique needs of families. This paper presents findings from a study to examine the systematic braiding of two evidence-based programs, Parents as Teachers and SafeCare at Home (PATSCH), with the goal to provide a more robust intervention for higher risk families. A cluster randomized effectiveness trial was conducted to examine if PATSCH improved parenting behaviors known to decrease the risk for child maltreatment compared to Parents as Teachers (PAT) Alone. Parents (= 159; 92 PAT Alone; 67 PATSCH) were enrolled to complete a baseline, 6-month and 12-month assessment. Results indicate the groups did not differ on number of environmental hazards in the home, parents' health care decision-making abilities, child abuse potential, and physical assault over time. However, with regard to the potential for child abuse, the PATSCH group showed a decrease in nonviolence discipline and increase in psychological aggression compared to the PAT group. Further research is needed to better examine this concept and its implications for the field.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5847301PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0886-2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

braiding evidence-based
8
evidence-based programs
8
cluster randomized
8
child maltreatment
8
parents teachers
8
child abuse
8
programs
4
families
4
programs families
4
families at-risk
4

Similar Publications

Background: Historical injustices, structural racism, and negative healthcare experiences contribute to Black and Brown communities' distrust of science. Bridging Research, Accurate Information, and Dialogue (BRAID) is a community engagement model that leverages trusted messengers to share accurate, co-created health and science messages to their community through their social networks. In our prior research, trusted messengers reported encountering resistance or "discord" when conveying information about controversial topics such as COVID-19 vaccines and the importance of diversity in clinical trials.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • * The trial involves 50 SafeCare Providers delivering two different programs to 500 families, comparing standard SafeCare with the new Smoke-Free Home SafeCare (SFHSC), which includes a smoking ban initiative.
  • * By evaluating various outcomes such as home smoking bans, parenting, and cost-effectiveness, the research aims to demonstrate a sustainable approach to addressing both SHS exposure and CM risk simultaneously.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Cultural beliefs, personal experiences, and historic abuses within the healthcare system-rooted in structural racism-all contribute to community distrust in science and medicine. This lack of trust, particularly within underserved communities, contributes to decreased participation in clinical trials and a lack of representation in the data. Open dialogue about community concerns and experiences related to research participation and medical care processes can help build trust and change attitudes and behaviors that affect community health.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Efforts to promote COVID-19 vaccination uncovered the effects of longstanding structural racism and perpetuated the erosion of community trust in science and public health institutions. Rebuilding trust is a priority to overcome barriers to vaccine uptake. Bridging Research, Accurate Information and Dialogue (BRAID) is a model that combines several evidence-based approaches to nurture trusting relationships with community experts, leading to the dissemination of accurate, timely, and acceptable COVID-19 vaccine messages.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Regulators increasingly require clinical outcome assessment (COA) data for approval. COAs can be collected via questionnaires or digital health technologies (DHTs), yet no single resource provides a side-by-side comparison of tools that collect complementary or related COA measures. We propose how to align ontologies for actively collected and passively monitored COAs into a single framework to allow for rapid, evidence-based, and fit-for-purpose measure selection.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!