‘Right from the Start’: randomized trial comparing an attachment group intervention to supportive home visiting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infant attachment security is a protective factor for future mental health, and may be promoted by individual interventions. Given service demands, it is important to determine if a group-based intervention for parents could be used to enhance infant attachment security. METHODS: In a randomized trial involving 76 mothers, an 8-session attachment group called 'Right from the Start' (RFTS) was compared to home visiting (treatment as usual). RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses indicated no significant differences between RFTS and home visiting, with both groups showing small improvements in infant attachment security and maternal sensitivity. RFTS cost significantly less and was more cost effective than home visiting, and was not significantly different in terms of participation ratings, client satisfaction, or follow-up service requests. There was differential compliance for the two interventions, with 89% and 58% attending 4 or more sessions of home visiting and RFTS, respectively. Secondary analyses considering non-attenders as a separate (nonrandomized) group indicated a significant advantage for those who attended RFTS on pre-test/post-test maternal sensitivity change scores (d = .52) and pre-test/6-month follow-up infant attachment security changes scores (d = .55). CONCLUSIONS: RFTS is as effective as home visiting in improving infant attachment security and maternal sensitivity. The effect sizes for RFTS were comparable to those of individual attachment interventions in this relatively inexpensive, community-based group intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".