Effectiveness Trial for Project SafeCare for Child Neglect

NCT ID: NCT01391754

Last Updated: 2011-07-12

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

2175 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2003-10-31

Study Completion Date

2007-09-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The study is a field trial comparing the SafeCare family preservation model to a comparable usual care model for parents in child welfare. The study also compares two levels of service quality control.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The study is a cluster-randomized field trial of the SafeCare(SC) home-based family preservation model for families in the child welfare system. The trial is conducted in collaboration with the state child welfare agency and their contracted in-home service system. The service system is regionalized and provides in home services to families referred by child welfare. Regions of the state are assigned by the study to either the SC model or to services as usual. Provider teams, nested within regions, are assigned to either a monitored or unmonitored model implementation quality control condition. The aims of the project are to test client level child welfare reentry outcomes between SC and standard conditions, across the two implementation and quality control conditions.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Child Neglect

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

FACTORIAL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

SafeCare with Coached Implementation

Home-based services with the SafeCare model, implemented with in vivo provider coaching as quality control

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

SafeCare

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Behavioral home based family preservation. Weekly visits X six months.

In vivo coached quality control

Intervention Type OTHER

Live observation of practice with expert coaching, feedback and fidelity monitoring

SafeCare without Coaching

Home-based services using the SafeCare model, implemented without in vivo coached implementation quality control

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

SafeCare

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Behavioral home based family preservation. Weekly visits X six months.

Uncoached

Intervention Type OTHER

No in vivo coached quality control or fidelity monitoring

Services As Usual with Coaching

Usual home based services, with in vivo coached implementation quality control

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

In vivo coached quality control

Intervention Type OTHER

Live observation of practice with expert coaching, feedback and fidelity monitoring

Services As Usual

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Home based services not using the SafeCare model

Services As Usual Without Coaching

Usual home based services without in vivo coached quality control

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Services As Usual

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Home based services not using the SafeCare model

Uncoached

Intervention Type OTHER

No in vivo coached quality control or fidelity monitoring

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

SafeCare

Behavioral home based family preservation. Weekly visits X six months.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

In vivo coached quality control

Live observation of practice with expert coaching, feedback and fidelity monitoring

Intervention Type OTHER

Services As Usual

Home based services not using the SafeCare model

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Uncoached

No in vivo coached quality control or fidelity monitoring

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Parents in the child welfare system for neglect with or without physical abuse

Exclusion Criteria

* Parents in the child welfare system for sexual abuse
Minimum Eligible Age

14 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

75 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

NIH

Sponsor Role collaborator

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

FED

Sponsor Role collaborator

Oklahoma Department of Health and Human Services

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Oklahoma

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Mark Chaffin, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Oklahoma

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Eastern Oklahoma Youth Services

McAlester, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

NorthCare

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Family and Children's Services

Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Aarons GA, Sommerfeld DH, Hecht DB, Silovsky JF, Chaffin MJ. The impact of evidence-based practice implementation and fidelity monitoring on staff turnover: evidence for a protective effect. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Apr;77(2):270-80. doi: 10.1037/a0013223.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 19309186 (View on PubMed)

Chaffin M, Bard D. Changes in parental depression symptoms during family preservation services. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):448-58. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.02.005. Epub 2011 Jun 1.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 21632109 (View on PubMed)

Chaffin M, Bard D, Hecht D, Silovsky J. Change trajectories during home-based services with chronic child welfare cases. Child Maltreat. 2011 May;16(2):114-25. doi: 10.1177/1077559511402048. Epub 2011 Apr 13.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 21493617 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

5R01MH065667

Identifier Type: NIH

Identifier Source: org_study_id

View Link

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Holding a Foster Child's Mind in Mind
NCT05196724 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA