Trial reportChild abuse & neglect2024
A collaborative practice pilot between child welfare and child health care providers: Lessons in implementation and evaluation of cross-sector interventions.
Trial report in Child abuse & neglect, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproved collaboration between child welfare and health care offers the possibility of improved child well-being after child welfare involvement.
objectiveTo pilot a collaborative practice model between CPS caseworkers and pediatric primary care providers (PCPs). PARTICIPANTS AND
settingInfants remaining at home following child welfare involvement in 2 regions of a Western state were randomly assigned to collaborative vs. standard practice between 11/2017 and 03/2019.
methodsCPS caseworkers were trained and randomized into standard vs collaborative practice model developed to promote information sharing between caseworkers and PCPs. A mixed-methods evaluation integrated administrative and qualitative data from child welfare, caregivers, caseworkers and PCPs. Outcomes evaluated included practice implementation; caregiver, caseworker, and PCP satisfaction with collaborative practice; and preliminary descriptions of practice impact.
resultsThere were 423 eligible cases randomized to either collaborative or standard practice. Uptake of all elements of the collaborative practice by caseworkers was limited. There were no significant differences in parental satisfaction with caseworkers, parental communication with PCPs regarding social risks or CPS involvement or repeat CPS investigations within 6 months of case closure identified between practice arms. Qualitative themes regarding facilitators of and barriers to implementation were explored from both PCP and CPS caseworker perspectives.
conclusionsLimited uptake challenges our ability to identify potential benefits of a collaborative practice for infant health or welfare outcomes. CPS caseworkers and pediatric PCPs report barriers to implementation as well as potential benefits for children and families with a more successful collaborative practice model.
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.