Caregivers' perspectives on the SafeCare® programme: Implementing an evidence‐based intervention for child neglect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This qualitative study examined caregivers' experiences with SafeCare®, an evidence‐based programme that focuses on child neglect through modules on health, safety, and parenting. Shortly after completing SafeCare, 30 caregivers participated in a semi‐structured interview about their experiences with the programme. Overall, caregivers indicated that the programme helped with improvements in their parenting skills. Among the factors that contributed to a positive experience were the simplicity of language, the skills‐based approach, and the quality of the relationship with the SafeCare provider. Caregivers also noted several factors that made it difficult to fully benefit from the programme, including financial constraints, removal of their child from the home, and general distrust towards the child welfare system. Findings provide relevant information for SafeCare providers in terms of identifying areas that work well for caregivers completing the programme, as well as areas that might serve as impediments. Implications for contemporary child welfare practice are also considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".