Is the Families First Home Visiting Program Effective in Reducing Child Maltreatment and Improving Child Development?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While home visiting programs are among the most widespread interventions to support at-risk families, there is a paucity of research investigating these programs under real-world conditions. The effectiveness of Families First home visiting (FFHV) was examined for decreasing rates of being in care of child welfare, decreasing hospitalizations for maltreatment-related injuries, and improving child development at school entry. Data for 4,562 children from home visiting and 5,184 comparison children were linked to deidentified administrative health, social services, and education data. FFHV was associated with lower rates of being in care by child's first, second, and third birthday (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.75, 0.79, and 0.81, respectively) and lower rates of hospitalization for maltreatment-related injuries by third birthday (aRR = 0.59). No differences were found in child development at kindergarten. FFHV should be offered to at-risk families to decrease child maltreatment. Program enhancements are required to improve child development at school entry.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it