Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40312587›Full record

Trial reportNature medicine2025

Infant mental health services for birth and foster families of maltreated pre-school children in foster care (BeST

Karen Crawford, Robin Young, Philip Wilson, Manuela Deidda, Matt Forde, Susanne Millar, Alex McConnachie, Kathleen Boyd, Emma McIntosh, Dennis Ougrin and 7 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nature medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02653716 (BeST?- The Best Services Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02653716 nacompletednot on this map

BeST?- The Best Services Trial (BeST?): Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of the New Orleans Intervention Model for Infant Mental Health

TypeinterventionalSponsorHelen MinnisRan2017 to 2023Enrolled384ConditionsMaltreatment, Mental HealthArmsNew Orleans Intervention Method, Case Management
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

17 authors.

Karen CrawfordCentre for Developmental Adversity and Resilience (CeDAR), University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.
Robin YoungRobertson Centre for Biostatistics (Glasgow Clinical Trials Unit), University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.
Philip WilsonInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen and Department of General Practice, Institute of Public Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Glasgow, UK.
Manuela DeiddaHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.
Matt FordeThe NSPCC, Glasgow, UK.
Susanne MillarGlasgow Health and Social Care Partnership, Glasgow, UK.
Alex McConnachieRobertson Centre for Biostatistics (Glasgow Clinical Trials Unit), University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7262-7000
Kathleen BoydHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.
Emma McIntoshHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.
Dennis OugrinYouth Resilience Unit, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development, Centre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University, London and East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Marion HendersonMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Christopher GillbergThe Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre and Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology University of Gothenburg and CeDAR, University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.
Gary KainthCentre for Developmental Adversity and Resilience (CeDAR), University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7073-6780
Fiona TurnerCentre for Developmental Adversity and Resilience (CeDAR), University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.
Edmund J S Sonuga-BarkeInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6996-3935
Bridie FitzpatrickCentre for Developmental Adversity and Resilience (CeDAR), University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK.
Helen MinnisCentre for Developmental Adversity and Resilience (CeDAR), University of Glasgow School of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK. helen.minnis@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2377-8945

Funding

DH | NIHR | Programme Development Grants (NIHR Programme Development Grants) PHR 12/211/54DH | NIHR | Public Health Research Programme (NIHR Public Health Research Programme) NIHRDH | NIHR | Public Health Research Programme (NIHR Public Health Research Programme) PHR 12/211/54
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children entering foster care are at high risk of poor mental health. In this single-blind, cluster-randomized phase 3 trial, 382 families with 488 0-5-year-old children, entering foster care, were randomized to the New Orleans Intervention Model (NIM) or social work services as usual (SAU). NIM offers infant mental health assessment (~3 months) and treatment (6-9 months) to children and to their birth and foster families, aiming to improve child mental health and recommend return home or adoption. The principal outcome was child mental health, as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Total Difficulties (SDQ-TD) scale at 2.5 years after study entry. In total, 286 families (149 NIM and 137 SAU, 367 children) were followed-up (79.4%). Intention-to-treat analysis found no intervention effect of NIM: mean (s.d.) SDQ-TD NIM, 11.5 (7.6); SAU, 11.1 (7.2); adjusted mean difference (NIM - SAU), 1.4; 95% confidence interval (-0.63, 3.53); P = 0.17. No within-trial effects for primary or secondary outcomes were observed. Despite its components being delivered to a high standard, the UK legal context surrounding NIM led to it being impossible to deliver to all eligible families, and less than 70% of families received the intervention to which they were randomized. Future research will be required to evaluate NIM in more favorable social and legal contexts. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02653716 .

Indexed as

Child AbuseChild, FosterFoster Home CareMental HealthMental Health ServicesChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleSingle-Blind Method

Identifiers

PMID40312587
PMCPMC12092239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.