评估强化家庭保护服务的有效性:多层次荟萃分析。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES Child Abuse & Neglect Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.107198
Lou Lippens , Lana De Clercq , Stijn Vandevelde , Sarah De Pauw , Geert-Jan Stams
{"title":"评估强化家庭保护服务的有效性:多层次荟萃分析。","authors":"Lou Lippens ,&nbsp;Lana De Clercq ,&nbsp;Stijn Vandevelde ,&nbsp;Sarah De Pauw ,&nbsp;Geert-Jan Stams","doi":"10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.107198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS) are an important part of child welfare. They are short-term, in-home treatment programs aimed at preventing imminent out-of-home placements, however, today, their overall effectiveness remains unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aims to conduct a comprehensive review of IFPS effectiveness, evaluate a wide range of outcomes, and analyze the impact of various factors on its success.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A three-level meta-analysis was conducted on 33 controlled trial studies comprising 226 effect sizes to test whether the effectiveness of IFPS was influenced by study, program, target, sample, and outcome characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Analyses showed that IFPS did have a modest overall effect on treatment outcomes (<em>g</em> = 0.18), with notable variations across different outcome measures, showing small and positive effects on out-of-home placement (<em>g</em> = 0.31), family functioning (<em>g</em> = 0.19), juvenile delinquency (<em>g</em> = 0.19), and parental psychopathology (<em>g</em> = 0.34). Greater program intensity was associated with smaller effects, and follow-up assessment yielded larger effects than post-test assessments, indicating that positive intervention effects increased over time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The findings suggest a rather limited effectiveness of IFPS, indicating that both practice and policy should take this into account. Recommendations for future research are provided to further enhance understanding and improvement of IFPS interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51343,"journal":{"name":"Child Abuse & Neglect","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 107198"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the effectiveness of intensive family preservation services: A multi-level meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Lou Lippens ,&nbsp;Lana De Clercq ,&nbsp;Stijn Vandevelde ,&nbsp;Sarah De Pauw ,&nbsp;Geert-Jan Stams\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.107198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS) are an important part of child welfare. They are short-term, in-home treatment programs aimed at preventing imminent out-of-home placements, however, today, their overall effectiveness remains unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aims to conduct a comprehensive review of IFPS effectiveness, evaluate a wide range of outcomes, and analyze the impact of various factors on its success.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A three-level meta-analysis was conducted on 33 controlled trial studies comprising 226 effect sizes to test whether the effectiveness of IFPS was influenced by study, program, target, sample, and outcome characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Analyses showed that IFPS did have a modest overall effect on treatment outcomes (<em>g</em> = 0.18), with notable variations across different outcome measures, showing small and positive effects on out-of-home placement (<em>g</em> = 0.31), family functioning (<em>g</em> = 0.19), juvenile delinquency (<em>g</em> = 0.19), and parental psychopathology (<em>g</em> = 0.34). Greater program intensity was associated with smaller effects, and follow-up assessment yielded larger effects than post-test assessments, indicating that positive intervention effects increased over time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The findings suggest a rather limited effectiveness of IFPS, indicating that both practice and policy should take this into account. Recommendations for future research are provided to further enhance understanding and improvement of IFPS interventions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51343,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child Abuse & Neglect\",\"volume\":\"160 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child Abuse & Neglect\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014521342400591X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Abuse & Neglect","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014521342400591X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:强化家庭保护服务是儿童福利的重要组成部分。它们是短期的家庭治疗项目,旨在防止即将到来的家庭外安置,然而,今天,它们的总体效果尚不清楚。目的:本研究旨在对IFPS的有效性进行全面回顾,评估广泛的结果,并分析各种因素对其成功的影响。方法:对包含226个效应量的33项对照试验进行三水平荟萃分析,以检验IFPS的有效性是否受到研究、项目、目标、样本和结局特征的影响。结果:分析显示,IFPS确实对治疗结果有适度的总体影响(g = 0.18),不同结果测量值之间存在显著差异,对家庭外安置(g = 0.31)、家庭功能(g = 0.19)、青少年犯罪(g = 0.19)和父母精神病理(g = 0.34)显示出小而积极的影响。更大的计划强度与较小的影响相关,随访评估比测试后评估产生更大的影响,表明积极的干预效果随着时间的推移而增加。结论:研究结果表明IFPS的有效性相当有限,表明实践和政策都应考虑到这一点。为进一步增进对IFPS干预措施的理解和改进,对未来的研究提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating the effectiveness of intensive family preservation services: A multi-level meta-analysis

Background

Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS) are an important part of child welfare. They are short-term, in-home treatment programs aimed at preventing imminent out-of-home placements, however, today, their overall effectiveness remains unclear.

Objective

This study aims to conduct a comprehensive review of IFPS effectiveness, evaluate a wide range of outcomes, and analyze the impact of various factors on its success.

Methods

A three-level meta-analysis was conducted on 33 controlled trial studies comprising 226 effect sizes to test whether the effectiveness of IFPS was influenced by study, program, target, sample, and outcome characteristics.

Results

Analyses showed that IFPS did have a modest overall effect on treatment outcomes (g = 0.18), with notable variations across different outcome measures, showing small and positive effects on out-of-home placement (g = 0.31), family functioning (g = 0.19), juvenile delinquency (g = 0.19), and parental psychopathology (g = 0.34). Greater program intensity was associated with smaller effects, and follow-up assessment yielded larger effects than post-test assessments, indicating that positive intervention effects increased over time.

Conclusions

The findings suggest a rather limited effectiveness of IFPS, indicating that both practice and policy should take this into account. Recommendations for future research are provided to further enhance understanding and improvement of IFPS interventions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
10.40%
发文量
397
期刊介绍: Official Publication of the International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect The International Journal, provides an international, multidisciplinary forum on all aspects of child abuse and neglect, with special emphasis on prevention and treatment; the scope extends further to all those aspects of life which either favor or hinder child development. While contributions will primarily be from the fields of psychology, psychiatry, social work, medicine, nursing, law enforcement, legislature, education, and anthropology, the Journal encourages the concerned lay individual and child-oriented advocate organizations to contribute.
期刊最新文献
Investigating the disparities among child sexual abuse material users: Anonymous self-reports from both charged and uncharged individuals A latent class analysis of technology-facilitated sexual violence: Associations to other victimizations, psychiatric symptoms, and gender Workplace experiences of nurses in their role as child abuse and neglect mandated reporters Associations between childhood abuse, exposure to domestic violence, and the risk of later violent revictimization in Australia Exploring the relationship between facets of childhood trauma and violent injury risk during adulthood: A dominance analysis study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1