Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32454356›Full record

Trial reportChild abuse & neglect2020

Benefit-cost analysis of Promoting First Relationships®: Implications of victim benefits assumptions for return on investment.

Margaret R Kuklinski, Monica L Oxford, Susan J Spieker, Mary Jane Lohr, Charles B Fleming

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Child abuse & neglect, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. On spillovers in economic evaluations: definition, mapping review and research agenda.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Margaret R KuklinskiSocial Development Research Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington, 9725 Third Ave. NE, Suite 401, Seattle, WA 98115, United States. Electronic address: mrk63@uw.edu.
Monica L OxfordDepartment of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: mloxford@uw.edu.
Susan J SpiekerDepartment of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: spieker@uw.edu.
Mary Jane LohrDepartment of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: mjlohr@uw.edu.
Charles B FlemingCenter for The Study of Health and Risk Behavior, Department of Psychiatry, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: cnbflem@uw.edu.
University of Washington · US

Funding

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research CenterU54HD083091 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DOHERTY, DANIEL · 2014 to 2019
$7.9M
Social Work intervention training for Maltreating Families of Infants, ToddlersR01HD061362 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI OXFORD, MONICA L · 2010 to 2014
$2.3M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD061362NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD083091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChild abuse and neglect (CAN) cost United States society $136 billion to $428 billion annually. Preventive interventions that reduce CAN may improve people's lives and generate economic benefits to society, but their magnitude is likely to vary greatly with assumptions about victim costs avoided through intervention.

objectiveWe examined the implications of different assumptions about avoided victim costs in a benefit-cost analysis of Promoting First Relationships® (PFR), a 10-session attachment and strengths-based home visiting intervention. PARTICIPANTS AND

settingParticipants were 247 child protection-involved but intact families in Washington State randomized to receive PFR (n = 124) or resource and referral (n = 123).

methodsWe monetized intervention effects on out-of-home placements and implicit effects on CAN and calculated net present values under three scenarios: (1) benefits from avoided system costs, (2) additional benefits from avoided tangible victim costs, and (3) additional benefits from avoided tangible and intangible quality-of-life victim costs. For scenarios 2 and 3, we varied the CAN effect size and estimated the effect size at which PFR was reliably cost beneficial.

resultsPFR's societal net benefit ranged from $1 (scenario 1) to $5514 - $25,562 (scenario 2) and $7004 - $32,072 (scenario 3) (2014 USD). In scenarios 2 and 3, PFR was reliably cost beneficial at a CAN effect size of approximately -0.25.

conclusionsPFR is cost beneficial assuming tangible victim costs are avoided by PFR. Research into the long-term health and economic consequences of reducing CAN in at-risk populations would contribute to comprehensive, accurate benefits models.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultCaregiversChild AbuseChild, PreschoolChild Protective ServicesCrime VictimsFemaleHumansMaleWashingtonBenefit-cost analysisChild maltreatmentPreventionPromoting First RelationshipsVictimization costs

Identifiers

PMID32454356
PMCPMC7359609
OpenAlexW3026151756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.