Targeted Child Mental Health Prevention and Parenting Support Within a Canadian Context: A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the U.S.-Developed Family Check-Up®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada lacks an approach to early childhood mental health prevention aimed at decreasing barriers to care among highest-needs families. In this Canadian randomized controlled trial, we aimed to evaluate whether participation in the Family Check-Up® (FCU®) would be associated with lower severity of child behavior problems (primary outcome) and caregiver psychological distress and daily parenting stress (secondary outcomes). Eligible caregivers of children aged 2-4 years with (i) high severity of behavior problems and/or (ii) above-average severity plus ≥ 1 family psychosocial risk factor were recruited from early education, community, and clinical settings in Hamilton, Ontario. Randomization: either the FCU® or a community comparison arm (206 analyzed of 207 enrolled). Caregiver reports on their child's behavior problems (primary outcome, Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Problems Scale), caregiver psychological distress, and daily parenting stress (secondary) were obtained 12 months after study enrolment, and rates of change were modeled over 0, 6, and 12 months. FCU® participants reported lower child behavior problem severity scores 12 months post-enrolment than did community comparison participants (d = 0.38, p < 0.01). Caregiver psychological distress (d = 0.17, p = 0.3) and parenting stress (d = .05, p = 0.8) did not differ significantly between arms. FCU® participants reported improvements in the severity of child behavior problems, relative to a community comparison group, but not in caregiver distress or parenting stress at 12 months. Positive results for primary outcome indicate the FCU's® promise as an effective child mental health prevention program in Canada. Further evaluation of intensified caregiver mental health supports may be warranted. Trial registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02800603).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".