Results from a randomized controlled pilot trial of a home-visiting intervention to reduce child maltreatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment has severe and lasting consequences, and evidence-based interventions are essential for its prevention. However, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted within child welfare settings in Norway. Pilot trials play an important part in assessing the acceptability and feasibility of such interventions prior to full scale evaluations. This study evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of conducting a full-scale RCT of the Family Partner home-visiting intervention, designed to reduce the risk of child maltreatment. METHODS: Families from three child welfare offices in Norway with at least one child under the age of 12 were invited to participate in this pilot trial. A two-arm randomized design was used, with participants allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control group (n = 45). The intervention group received the home-visiting Family Partner intervention, while the control group received treatment as usual. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted alongside the trial, comprising 29 interviews with Family Partners, caseworkers, participating families, and other stakeholders. Statistical and qualitative analyses evaluated participant acceptability, adherence, and retention. RESULTS: Qualitative findings indicate a high level of acceptability for the Family Partner intervention across all stakeholder groups. Adherence was strong, with no participants withdrawing consent and only two opting out of subsequent surveys. However, participant retention declined over time, with survey response rates dropping at each time point and only 42% completing the final assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial provides preliminary evidence supporting the acceptability of the Family Partner intervention within child welfare services and highlights important considerations regarding the feasibility of conducting RCTs in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04957394.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".