MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408770721 · doi:10.1016/j.acap.2025.102820

Connecting Families: Poverty Screening and Financial Support Navigation for Families of Young Children in Primary Care: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4408770721 on OpenAlexafffund
Imaan Bayoumi, Patricia C. Parkin, Mary Martin, Charles Keown‐Stoneman, Catherine S. Birken, Jonathon L. Maguire, Cornelia M. Borkhoff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Pediatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesToronto Western HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioKingston Health Sciences CentreSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
FundersFaculty of Health Sciences, Queen's UniversityQueen's University
KeywordsPovertyPrimary careRandomized controlled trialPsychologyFamily medicineMedicineEconomic growthEconomicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the impact of community support worker (CSW) supported, structured review of financial supports and social system navigation. METHODS: A pilot RCT of parent-child dyads (1 parent and child aged 2-5 years old) endorsing the question "Do you ever have difficulty making ends meet at the end of the month?" was conducted in primary care in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Interventions included CSW-supported social system navigation or control; both groups received a written summary of available resources. The primary outcome was feasibility, including recruitment, completion, and retention rates and intervention adherence and fidelity. Secondary outcomes were child social, emotional, and behavioral health (Strengths and Difficulties Scale [SDQ]) and parenting stress (Parenting Stress Index-IV [PSI]). RESULTS: Of 74 eligible dyads, 37 (50%) were enrolled, mean (standard deviation [SD]) child age 35.4 (11.1) months and 57% were female. Outcomes were assessed on 29 participants (78%) at 6 months and 22 participants (60%) at 12 months. Participants randomized to the intervention arm met with the CSW a mean of 1.71 (SD 1.68) times, with a range of 0 to 5 meetings, including 35.7% who did not attend any meetings with the CSW. Using analysis of covariance, the mean between-group difference in the baseline adjusted SDQ Total Difficulties Score at 6 months was -1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.82, 1.40) and at 12 months was 1.10 (95% CI -3.13, 5.34), and in the baseline adjusted PSI Total Score at 6 months was -12.88 (95% CI -21.63, -4.12) and at 12 months was 7.79 (95% CI -4.42, 20.00). CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a trial enrolling families of young children experiencing financial strain is feasible. A definitive trial with modifications is warranted and is underway. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT05667675.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAcademic PediatricsSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207