Families First Home-Visiting Program: Impact on Child and Adolescent Education, Mental Disorders, and Service Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the effectiveness of the Families First Home-Visiting (FFHV) program, versus risk-matched controls, on mental disorder, education, and service use outcomes in childhood and adolescence. Methods: Administrative-linked data from a retrospective, population-based cohort drawn from the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy repository, in Manitoba, Canada, was analysed. All families with a child born between 2003-2009 who were eligible for the FFHV program (N = 9,761) were included. Families were exposed to the FFHV program or not (risk-matched controls) when children were 0-3 years old. Outcomes of interest included mental disorders, educational, and service use. Moderators came from the FFHV program universal newborn screener and included child, parent psychosocial, and socioeconomic risk factors. Results: Children/Adolescents from the FFHV program were more likely to receive a mental disorder diagnosis (Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, mood and/or anxiety disorders, any mental illness) and engage with health services compared to risk-matched controls. No significant difference in education outcomes were found. Outcomes were moderated by the presence of child (service use), parent psychosocial (mental disorder and Early Development Instrument), and socioeconomic (service use, provincial education assessments, and Early Development Instrument) risk factors identified at birth. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate mental disorders, educational, and service use outcomes for children/adolescents who previously received the FFHV program. Findings have important implications for tailoring home-visiting programs based on significant moderation of risk factors identified at birth to optimize child outcomes. Trial Registration: N/A
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".