ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2020
Supporting Strategic Investment in Social Programs: a Cost Analysis of the Family Check-Up.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kindergarten conduct problems are associated with monetized outcomes in adolescence and adulthood.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2024Article
- A budget impact analysis of cost to implement a whole child health focused, family-based intervention in primary care for children with elevated BMI.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Reducing Poverty-Related Disparities in Child Development and School Readiness: The Smart Beginnings Tiered Prevention Strategy that Combines Pediatric Primary Care with Home Visiting.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2021Review
- Smart Beginnings Predicts Reduced Externalizing Behavior Via Parental Negative Demeanor During Discipline.Journal of applied developmental psychologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
High-quality evidence about the costs of effective interventions for children can provide a foundation for fiscally responsible policy capable of achieving impact. This study estimated the costs to society of the Family Check-up, an evidence-based brief home-visiting intervention for high-risk families implemented in the Early Steps multisite efficacy trial. Intervention arm families in three sites were offered 4 consecutive years of intervention, when target children were ages 2 through 5. Data for estimating total, average, and marginal costs and family burden (means and standard deviations, 2015 USD, discounted at 3% per year) came from a detailed database that prospectively documented resource use at the family level and a supplemental interview with trial leaders. Secondary analyses evaluated differences in costs among higher and lower risk families using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results indicated annual average costs of $1066 per family (SD = $400), with time spent by families valued at an additional $84 (SD = $99) on average. Costs declined significantly from ages 2 through 5. Once training and oversight patterns were established, additional families could be served at half the cost, $501 (SD = $404). On the margin, higher risk families cost more, $583 (SD = $444) compared to $463 (SD = $380) for lower risk families, but prior analyses showed they also benefited more. Sensitivity analyses indicated potential for wage-related cost savings in real-world implementation compared to the university-based trial. This study illustrates the dynamics of Family Check-up resource use over time and across families differing in risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.