Implementing a long-term home visiting program for vulnerable, young mothers within a community: Perspectives from healthcare and social service providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To date, little is known about the perspectives of healthcare and social service providers on the acceptability of long-term home visiting programs serving low-income, first-time mothers within a community. The present study reports on the experiences and perspectives of community professionals who participate in program referrals or deliver auxiliary services to these mothers who are enrolled in the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP), a targeted nurse home visitation program. Methods: The present study comprised two phases. In phase one, a secondary qualitative data analysis was conducted to analyze a purposeful sample of 24 individual interviews with healthcare and social service providers, which was part of a larger qualitative case study examining adaptations required to increase the acceptability of NFP for families and service providers in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. In phase two, identified themes from phase one were further explored and confirmed through individual, semi-structured interviews with service providers using a qualitative descriptive approach. Findings: Healthcare and social service providers recognized the added value of NFP to existing community services for low-income, first-time mothers. The public health nurses (PHNs) who delivered the NFP intervention were perceived as playing a crucial role in connecting the first-time mothers to community services, preparing them for motherhood, and for preventing or ending the involvement of child protection services. NFP services were not perceived as interfering with the logistics of existing services being delivered; they were viewed as addressing an important service gap. Discussion: This is the first qualitative study to examine the acceptability of a home visiting intervention from the perspectives of healthcare and social service providers in a community context. The study findings have relevance for policymakers by informing the general understanding of how a new early childhood prevention program is integrated among existing community-based supports servicing low-income, first-time mothers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".