Pilot randomized controlled trial of an attachment- and trauma-focused intervention for kinship caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kinship care placements are increasing in many Western countries, however families in kinship care are underserved partly due to the lack of evidence-based interventions addressing their unique needs. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to examine research feasibility and the acceptability, fidelity, and preliminary outcomes of an attachment- and trauma-focused intervention for kinship caregivers in Australia. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: = 10.58 years; 38% female), and 19 practitioners from child protection, out-of-home care and other services. METHOD: Kinship caregivers were randomized to Connect for Kinship Parents (Connect-KP) or care-as-usual (CAU), and completed assessments at baseline, post-intervention, and 6-month follow-up. Placement changes were evaluated at 6-month follow-up. A subset of practitioners received both training and supervision in implementing Connect-KP, and their videorecorded sessions were coded for fidelity. RESULTS: Practitioners rated the training highly and demonstrated excellent fidelity to program content and process. Results supported the research feasibility and all kinship caregivers reported high levels of program satisfaction and had very high attendance and completion rates. Direction of effects favored Connect-KP vs. CAU for all nine caregiver and youth outcomes, with the largest effects observed for significant reductions in caregiver strain, caregiver psychological aggression, and youth affect suppression following intervention. At 6-month follow-up, more youth from CAU (15%) vs. Connect-KP (0%) experienced an unplanned placement change. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show promise of Connect-KP as a potentially effective intervention that can be successfully implemented in child welfare services, and provide impetus for a larger-scale RCT.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".