Impact of a multidimensional intervention programme applied to families at risk for child neglect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of an intervention programme applied to families at risk for child neglect. Twenty-nine families were recruited through a Local Community Services Centre (LCSC) and were assigned to two groups: (1) the first group participated in a multidimensional eco-systemic intervention programme called the Personal, Family and Community Help Program (PFCHP); and (2) the second group underwent psychosocial intervention that was provided as part of regular LCSC services and focused mainly on the social worker–family relationship. Pre-test measures were obtained at the beginning of intervention for both groups and a follow-up was held 24 months later. Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicated that both forms of intervention were associated with improved parent–child relationship and the reduction of parental stress, depression and the potential for child abuse and neglect. However, PFCHP participants showed multiple indications of improvement in their social and marital relationships, which was not the case for LCSC participants. The conclusion outlines the need for a long-term intervention process for families at high risk for child neglect and the necessity of addressing multiple dimensions of family life if lasting changes are to be expected. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".