It's all about the Family: Research on Dutch Families with Multiple and Complex Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the scaling up of family-focused interventions, the number of child out-of-home placements continued to rise in the Netherlands. Most of these children came from families with multiple and complex problems. The underlying reasons for the rise of out-of-home placements were unknown. The main goal is to prevent children from being placed in out-of-home care. To achieve this, research was conducted to gain insight into the experiences of youth care professionals using family-focused interventions. A mixed method research study was done based on the questionnaire of Bodden and Decovic (2015). Qualitatively, 16 semi-structured interviews with youth care providers were conducted and a quantitative statistical analysis of 206 cases of families with multiple and complex problems were analyzed. Family-focused interventions are highly regarded and used by all stakeholders. However, help for families with multiple and complex problems is fragmented and so are the multiple (and possibly contradictory) family interventions. All 206 cases showed problems in all domains. Factors that interfere with family functioning are the most common, child factors the least. There is no significant relationship between child out-of-home placement and child factors. With each additional family problem, the chance of out-of-home placement increases by 10%. This study shows the complexity, not only of the families themselves but also the caregivers involved in these families. It is important to recognize and understand this complexity. Dealing with this complexity requires a different approach. The addition of a client supporter or an expert by experience is recommended.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".