SafeCare®

Entries in this row combine information across all versions of SafeCare except for SafeCare Augmented. The main version of SafeCare has no high- or moderate-quality impact studies. Some other versions of SafeCare have at least one such study, but no version of the model other than SafeCare Augmented meets HHS criteria for an evidence-based home visiting model. Planned Activities Training (a SafeCare module) and Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (a SafeCare module with an add-on) show evidence of effectiveness.

Last updated: July 2018

Model Overview

Theoretical Model

SafeCare is a structured parenting intervention that is designed to address the behaviors that can lead to child neglect and abuse. SafeCare is an adaptation of Project 12-Ways. SafeCare was developed to offer a more easily disseminated and streamlined intervention to parents at risk for child abuse and neglect, based on three key modules from Project 12-Ways.

The SafeCare parent training includes three modules: (1) Planned Activities Training, which focuses on parent-child/parent-infant interactions, (2) infant and child health, and (3) home safety. The model emphasizes learning in a social context and uses behavioral principles for parent training across the three modules. SafeCare Augmented, an enhanced version of SafeCare, adheres to the SafeCare model with additional training on Motivational Interviewing and domestic violence.

Project 12-Ways, the model on which SafeCare was based*, employs an ecobehavioral approach to the treatment and prevention of child abuse and neglect. Ecobehavioral refers to the multifaceted in-home services provided to families. As the name implies, Project 12-Ways offers training in twelve key topic areas: (1) parent-child interaction, (2) stress reduction for parents, (3) basic skills training for children, (4) money management training, (5) social support, (6) home safety training, (7) multi-setting behavior management, (8) infant and child health and nutrition, (9) problem solving, (10) marital discord counseling, (11) alcohol abuse referral, and (12) a variety of pre- and post-natal prevention services for young and unwed mothers.

*Project 12-Ways is described because studies of Project 12-Ways are included in the evidence base for SafeCare.

View Revisions

Model Components

SafeCare, like its precursor Project 12-Ways, includes one-on-one home visits between providers and families. SafeCare includes three modules: (1) Planned Activities Training, (2) infant and child health, and (3) home safety. The Planned Activities Training module aims to teach parents to provide engaging and stimulating activities, increase positive interactions, and prevent troublesome child behaviors. The infant and child health module trains parents to use health reference materials, record health information, use basic health supplies (such as a thermometer), prevent illness, identify symptoms of childhood illnesses or injuries, and provide or seek appropriate treatment. The home safety module helps parents identify and eliminate safety and health hazards to children.

The three SafeCare modules typically involve a baseline assessment and observation of parental knowledge and skills, followed by four parent training sessions, and conclude with a follow-up assessment to monitor change. Providers use a four-step approach during the parent training sessions to address target behaviors: (1) describe and explain the rationale for each behavior, (2) model each behavior, (3) ask the parent to practice the behavior, and (4) provide positive and constructive feedback. This approach is designed to promote generalization of skills across time, behaviors, and settings.

View Revisions

Target Population

SafeCare, like its precursor Project 12 Ways, is designed for families with a history of child maltreatment or risk factors for child maltreatment, including young parents; parents with multiple children; parents with a history of depression or other mental health problems, substance use, or intellectual disabilities; foster parents; parents being reunified with their children; parents recently released from incarceration; and parents with a history of domestic violence or intimate partner violence. The model also serves parents of children with developmental or physical disabilities, or mental health, emotional, or behavioral issues. SafeCare is intended to complement the more specialized intervention services these families might be receiving from other agencies.

SafeCare is available to parents with children ages birth to 5 and has been used with culturally diverse populations.

View Revisions

Where to Find Out More

National SafeCare Training and Research Center
Mark Chaffin Center for Healthy Development
School of Public Health
Georgia State University
P.O. Box 3995
Atlanta, GA 30302-3995
Phone: (404) 413-1281
Email: safecareinfo@gsu.edu
Website: www.safecare.org

View Revisions

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details

Summary of Findings

Please read Describing Effects for more information on these categories. Only results from studies that meet the standards for the high or moderate ratings are included above.

View Revisions

Reductions in Child Maltreatment

Outcomes Rated High

SafeCare Augmented
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
CAPI
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 166.50 Mean = 170.80 Mean difference = -4.30 HomeVEE calculated = -0.04 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
CAPI
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 168.60 Mean = 128.30 Mean difference = 40.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.38 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
CTS-PC, nonviolent discipline
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 55.20 Mean = 50.50 Mean difference = 4.70 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Secondary
CTS-PC, nonviolent discipline
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 52.00 Mean = 51.60 Mean difference = 0.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
CTS-PC, physical assault
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
CTS-PC, physical assault
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
CTS-PC, psychological aggression
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
CTS-PC, psychological aggression
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Post-enrollment referral to child welfare where child was removed from the home
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
716 days Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

CAPI

The Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI)is a 160-item questionnaire in agree/disagree format developed to estimate child abuse risk.

Parent/caregiver report 

Not reported by author

Primary

CTS-PC

The Conflict TacticsScale-ParentChild (CTS-PC) assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The authors used the subscales for nonviolent discipline, psychological aggression, and physical assault. Four items comprising the assault subscale were not used because of abuse reporting concerns.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
View Revisions

Positive Parenting Practices

Outcomes Rated High

SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.83 Adjusted mean = 3.54 Mean difference = 0.30 Study reported = 0.46 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.99 Adjusted mean = 3.48 Mean difference = 0.51 Study reported = 0.78 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.47 Adjusted mean = 0.38 Mean difference = 0.09 Study reported = 0.56 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.55 Adjusted mean = 0.37 Mean difference = 0.18 Study reported = 1.13 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)

Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions.

Observational assessment

Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 and the items have a high internal consistency reliability (a = 0.89).

Secondary

Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed, as measured by the Planned Activities Training Checklist

Observational assessment

Not reported by authors

Secondary
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.82 Adjusted mean = 3.54 Mean difference = 0.22 Study reported = 0.34 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Secondary
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.97 Adjusted mean = 3.48 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.62 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.45 Adjusted mean = 0.38 Mean difference = 0.07 Study reported = 0.44 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.51 Adjusted mean = 0.37 Mean difference = 0.13 Study reported = 0.81 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)

Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions.

Observational assessment

Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 and the items have a high internal consistency reliability (a = 0.89).

Secondary

Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed, as measured by the Planned Activities Training Checklist

Observational assessment

Not reported by authors

Secondary
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 258 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.37 Statistically significant, p = 0.01 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 258 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.58 Statistically significant, p < 0.001 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed on an observed parent-child clean-up task, as measured by the PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills checklist.

Direct observation

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.68 to 0.78.

Primary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

SafeCare/Project 12-Ways: Home Safety Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Total Number of Hazardous Items
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-3 weeks Project 12-Ways 3 families Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Not applicable Not applicable Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Total Number of Hazardous Items

The Home Accident Prevention Inventory, a home assessment protocol to record the accessibility of hazardous items in the home, was used to record the number of hazardous items accessible to the target children. Five categories of hazards were included: (1) poisoning by solids and liquids, (2) suffocation by mechanical objects, (3) fire and electrical, (4) suffocation by ingested objects, and (5) firearms.

Observation

Rates of inter-observer agreement across hazard categories ranged from 77 to 100 percent.

Primary
Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Going to the doctor
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 2.85 Mean = 2.00 Mean difference = 0.85 HomeVEE calculated = 0.78 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Going to the doctor
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 2.85 Mean = 2.20 Mean difference = 0.65 HomeVEE calculated = 0.59 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Going to the doctor
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 2.85 Mean = 1.75 Mean difference = 1.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.92 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Health comprehension
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 5.10 Mean = 4.91 Mean difference = 0.19 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Health comprehension
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 5.10 Mean = 5.80 Mean difference = -0.70 HomeVEE calculated = -0.71 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Health comprehension
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 5.10 Mean = 5.50 Mean difference = -0.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.36 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Illustrations—Dangers
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 76.25 Mean = 57.33 Mean difference = 18.92 HomeVEE calculated = 1.50 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Illustrations—Dangers
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 76.25 Mean = 55.70 Mean difference = 20.55 HomeVEE calculated = 2.02 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Illustrations—Dangers
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 76.25 Mean = 54.82 Mean difference = 21.43 HomeVEE calculated = 1.65 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Illustrations—Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 78.85 Mean = 45.33 Mean difference = 33.52 HomeVEE calculated = 1.92 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Illustrations—Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 78.85 Mean = 47.10 Mean difference = 31.75 HomeVEE calculated = 1.91 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Illustrations—Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 78.85 Mean = 48.91 Mean difference = 29.94 HomeVEE calculated = 1.75 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 60.35 Mean = 45.67 Mean difference = 14.68 HomeVEE calculated = 0.67 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 60.35 Mean = 53.30 Mean difference = 7.05 HomeVEE calculated = 0.35 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Home Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 60.35 Mean = 48.73 Mean difference = 11.62 HomeVEE calculated = 0.60 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Illness and symptom recognition
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 12.95 Mean = 9.36 Mean difference = 3.59 HomeVEE calculated = 1.09 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Illness and symptom recognition
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 12.95 Mean = 10.50 Mean difference = 2.45 HomeVEE calculated = 0.69 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Illness and symptom recognition
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 12.95 Mean = 10.80 Mean difference = 2.15 HomeVEE calculated = 0.62 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Life threatening emergencies
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 4.95 Mean = 3.25 Mean difference = 1.70 HomeVEE calculated = 0.88 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Life threatening emergencies
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 4.95 Mean = 3.00 Mean difference = 1.95 HomeVEE calculated = 0.98 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Life threatening emergencies
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 4.95 Mean = 1.91 Mean difference = 3.04 HomeVEE calculated = 1.79 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Using medicine safely
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 2.15 Mean = 1.75 Mean difference = 0.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.46 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Using medicine safely
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 2.15 Mean = 1.00 Mean difference = 1.15 HomeVEE calculated = 1.30 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Using medicine safely
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 2.15 Mean = 1.27 Mean difference = 0.88 HomeVEE calculated = 0.97 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Going to the doctor

Measures parent knowledge about when to go to the doctor, what to tell and ask the doctor. Scores ranging from 0 to 9 and represent the sum of 3 sub-scale scores related to calling the doctor, asking questions and following directions. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.52

Secondary

Health comprehension

Measures parent knowledge of health related words and body parts. Scores range from 0 through to 6 and represent the sum of two-sub-scale scores: health related vocabulary and knowledge of body parts. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.54

Secondary

Home Illustrations—Dangers

Count of the total number of dangers identified in pictures of six areas of the home (kitchen, bathroom, living room, stairs, bedroom and yard). Scores ranged from 0 to 104.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.89

Primary

Home Illustrations—Precautions

Count of the total number of precautions identified for dangers identified in pictures of six areas of the home (kitchen, bathroom, living room, stairs, bedroom and yard)

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.87

Secondary

Home Precautions

Scores represent the total number of precautions actually taken to deal with 114 possible dangers in and around the home related to the following: fire, electrical, cooking, poisons, inappropriate edibles, suffocation, heavy and sharp objects, firearms, clutter, dangerous toys, animals, outside and general dangers.

Home assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.98

Secondary

Illness and symptom recognition

Measures parent knowledge about symptoms of illness, common child health problems, and practical tasks such as taking a child’s temperature. Scores range from 0 to 21 and represent the sum of 7 sub-scale scores related to recognizing symptoms of illness. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.66

Secondary

Life threatening emergencies

Measures parent knowledge about life threatening emergencies, including causes, prevention, and appropriate response. Scores range from 0 to 12 and represent the sum of 4 sub-scale scores related to parent knowledge of and skills in responding to life threatening emergencies. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20% of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80% or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.69

Secondary

Using medicine safely

Measures parent knowledge about prescription medication, how to use medicine safely, reading important information on medication labels, and following directions exactly. Scores range from 0 to 6 and represent the sum of two sub-scale scores related to asking questions about and using medicine safely. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20% of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80% or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.45

Secondary
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.68 Statistically significant, p < 0.001 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.35 Statistically significant, p = 0.00 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed on an observed parent-child clean-up task, as measured by the PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills checklist.

Direct observation

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.68 to 0.78.

Primary
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.68 Statistically significant, p < 0.001 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.35 Statistically significant, p = 0.00 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed on an observed parent-child clean-up task, as measured by the PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills checklist.

Direct observation

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.68 to 0.78.

Primary
View Revisions

Linkages and Referrals

Outcomes Rated High

SafeCare Augmented
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Referrals/linkages to additional services
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families = 0.50 = 0.00 Difference = 0.50 Not available Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Referrals/linkages to additional services

The percentage of program providers who referred and linked families to additional services.

Review of program records

Not applicable

Primary
View Revisions

Family Economic Self-Sufficiency

Outcomes Rated High

SafeCare Augmented
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
FRS-R
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 136.00 Mean = 138.60 Mean difference = -2.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
FRS-R
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 149.70 Mean = 141.20 Mean difference = 8.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.40 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
SPS
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 40.10 Mean = 38.80 Mean difference = 1.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.24 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
SPS
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 41.00 Mean = 40.20 Mean difference = 0.80 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

FRS-R

The Family Resource Scale –Revised (FRS-R) is a 30-item instrument designed to measure the adequacy of resources in households with children. The instrument includes seven scales: income, childcare, communication/employment, intrafamily support, physical shelter, nutrition/protection, health/necessities, and growth/social support.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

SPS

The Social Provisions Scale (SPS) examines social the capacity of relationships to provide dimensions of social support

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
View Revisions

Maternal Health

Outcomes Rated High

SafeCare Augmented
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
BDI-2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 14.90 Mean = 15.40 Mean difference = -0.05 HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
BDI-2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 15.50 Mean = 11.20 Mean difference = 4.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.31 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
DIS alcohol module
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
DIS alcohol module
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
DIS drug module
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
DIS drug module
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

BDI-2

The Beck Depression Inventory 2(BDI-2) is a 21-item multiple-choice instrument designed to measure symptoms of depression.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Primary

DIS drug and alcohol module

The Diagnostic Inventory Schedule (DIS) is an interview based on the Dignostic and Statistical Analysis of Mental Disorders. The authors used a modified self-report instrument, which has been used in past studies. The alcohol and drug modules were included in the study.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 221 mothers Adjusted mean = 6.12 Adjusted mean = 8.25 Mean difference = -2.52 Study reported = 0.31 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Secondary

footnote162

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 224 mothers Adjusted mean = 7.52 Adjusted mean = 8.70 Mean difference = -1.59 HomeVEE calculated = -0.17 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Mild to severe depression
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 221 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p = 0.04 Secondary

footnote162

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Mild to severe depression
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 224 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p = 0.05 Secondary

footnote162

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 68.91 Adjusted mean = 73.33 Mean difference = -5.61 Study reported = 0.27 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Secondary

footnote162

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)

Mean score on BDI-II; BDI-II was used to assess depressive mood and somatic complaints.

Parent/caregiver report

internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.92 to 0.93

Secondary

Mild to severe depression

Percentage of mothers exhibiting mild to severe depression on the BDI-II

Parent/caregiver report

internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.92 to 0.93

Secondary

Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF)

PSI -SF14 was used to assess maternal parenting stress.

Parent/caregiver report

Internal consistencies were very good to excellent

Secondary
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 8.37 Adjusted mean = 8.25 Mean difference = -0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Planned Activities Training vs. Control 251 mothers Adjusted mean = 7.88 Adjusted mean = 8.70 Mean difference = -1.27 HomeVEE calculated = 0.11 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Mild to severe depression
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 249 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Mild to severe depression
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Planned Activities Training vs. Control 251 mothers Percentage = 0.05 Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 72.30 Adjusted mean = 73.33 Mean difference = -2.78 HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)

Mean score on BDI-II; BDI-II was used to assess depressive mood and somatic complaints.

Parent/caregiver report

internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.92 to 0.93

Secondary

Mild to severe depression

Percentage of mothers exhibiting mild to severe depression on the BDI-II

Parent/caregiver report

internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.92 to 0.93

Secondary

Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF)

PSI -SF14 was used to assess maternal parenting stress.

Parent/caregiver report

Internal consistencies were very good to excellent

Secondary
View Revisions

Reductions in Juvenile Delinquency, Family Violence, and Crime

Outcomes Rated High

SafeCare Augmented
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
CTS2 victimization, negotiation
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 53.60 Mean = 50.00 Mean difference = 3.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Statistically significant, p < 0.001 Secondary
CTS2 victimization, negotiation
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families Mean = 51.10 Mean = 54.30 Mean difference = -3.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
CTS2 victimization, partnered
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
10 months Rural Southwest 105 families % = 48.00 % = 76.00 Difference = -28.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.75 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
CTS2 victimization, partnered
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
17 months Rural Southwest 105 families % = 62.00 % = 72.00 Difference = -10.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.28 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

CTS2 victimization, negotiation

The Conflicts Tactic Scale 2 (CTS2) was developed to assess adult-to-adult conflict and includes five subscales measuring negotiation, psychological aggression, physical assault, injury, and sexual coercion.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

CTS2 victimization, partnered

The ConflictTacticScale 2 (CTS2) was developed to assess adult-to-adult conflict and includes five subscales measuring negotiation, psychological aggression, physical assault, injury, and sexual coercion.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
View Revisions

Child Development and School Readiness

Outcomes Rated High

SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Adaptive Behaviors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 53.59 Adjusted mean = 48.28 Mean difference = 2.95 Study reported = 0.29 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Secondary
Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Externalizing Behaviors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 47.73 Adjusted mean = 49.85 Mean difference = -2.17 HomeVEE calculated = -0.21 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Internalizing Behaviors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 48.48 Adjusted mean = 49.21 Mean difference = -2.27 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.45 Adjusted mean = 4.23 Mean difference = 0.27 Study reported = 0.43 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.001 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Adaptive Behaviors

Mean score on the BASC-2-PRS, adaptive behaviors

Parent/caregiver report

Internal consistency reliability for the age of interest ranged from 0.85 to 0.93; test-retest reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.86.

Secondary

Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Externalizing Behaviors

Mean score on the BASC-2-PRS, externalizing behaviors

Parent/caregiver report

Internal consistency reliability for the age of interest ranged from 0.85 to 0.93; test-retest reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.86.

Secondary

Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Internalizing Behaviors

Mean score on the BASC-2-PRS, internalizing behaviors

Parent/caregiver report

Internal consistency reliability for the age of interest ranged from 0.85 to 0.93; test-retest reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.86.

Secondary

Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS)

Mean CBRS score; CBRS was a 5-point scale used to rate five dimensions of children’s positive engagement and responsiveness during parent-child interactions.

Child assessment

Internal consistency = 0.81

Secondary
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Adaptive Behaviors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 50.27 Adjusted mean = 48.28 Mean difference = 0.77 HomeVEE calculated = 0.18 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Externalizing Behaviors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 48.96 Adjusted mean = 49.85 Mean difference = -1.44 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Internalizing Behaviors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 50.60 Adjusted mean = 49.21 Mean difference = -0.55 HomeVEE calculated = 0.13 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.33 Adjusted mean = 4.23 Mean difference = 0.18 Study reported = 0.29 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Adaptive Behaviors

Mean score on the BASC-2-PRS, adaptive behaviors

Parent/caregiver report

Internal consistency reliability for the age of interest ranged from 0.85 to 0.93; test-retest reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.86.

Secondary

Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Externalizing Behaviors

Mean score on the BASC-2-PRS, externalizing behaviors

Parent/caregiver report

Internal consistency reliability for the age of interest ranged from 0.85 to 0.93; test-retest reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.86.

Secondary

Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Internalizing Behaviors

Mean score on the BASC-2-PRS, internalizing behaviors

Parent/caregiver report

Internal consistency reliability for the age of interest ranged from 0.85 to 0.93; test-retest reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.86.

Secondary

Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS)

Mean CBRS score; CBRS was a 5-point scale used to rate five dimensions of children’s positive engagement and responsiveness during parent-child interactions.

Child assessment

Internal consistency = 0.81

Secondary
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Child adaptive skills: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 258 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = -0.15 Not statistically significant, p = 0.37 Secondary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Child cooperative behavior: Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 258 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.28 Not statistically significant, p = 0.06 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Child externalizing behaviors: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 258 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p = 0.57 Secondary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Child adaptive skills: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean score on the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, a measure of child adaptive behaviors.

Maternal report

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.89 to 0.91.

Secondary

Child cooperative behavior: Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) score; CBRS is a 5-point scale used to rate five dimensions of children’s positive engagement and responsiveness during parent-child interactions.

Direct observation

Internal consistency ranged from 0.80 to 0.87.

Primary

Child externalizing behaviors: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean score on the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, a measure of child externalizing behaviors.

Maternal report

Internal consistency reliability was 0.88.

Secondary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Child adaptive skills: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p = 0.59 Secondary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Child cooperative behavior: Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.38 Statistically significant, p = 0.04 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Child externalizing behaviors: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p = 0.00 Secondary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Child adaptive skills: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean score on the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, a measure of child adaptive behaviors.

Maternal report

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.89 to 0.91.

Secondary

Child cooperative behavior: Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) score; CBRS is a 5-point scale used to rate five dimensions of children’s positive engagement and responsiveness during parent-child interactions.

Direct observation

Internal consistency ranged from 0.80 to 0.87.

Primary

Child externalizing behaviors: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean score on the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, a measure of child externalizing behaviors.

Maternal report

Internal consistency reliability was 0.88.

Secondary
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Child adaptive skills: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p = 0.59 Secondary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Child cooperative behavior: Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.38 Statistically significant, p = 0.04 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Child externalizing behaviors: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p = 0.00 Secondary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Child adaptive skills: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean score on the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Adaptive Skills subscale, a measure of child adaptive behaviors.

Maternal report

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.89 to 0.91.

Secondary

Child cooperative behavior: Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) score; CBRS is a 5-point scale used to rate five dimensions of children’s positive engagement and responsiveness during parent-child interactions.

Direct observation

Internal consistency ranged from 0.80 to 0.87.

Primary

Child externalizing behaviors: Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean score on the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS), Externalizing subscale, a measure of child externalizing behaviors.

Maternal report

Internal consistency reliability was 0.88.

Secondary
View Revisions

In Brief

Evidence of Model Effectiveness

An adaptation of SafeCare, called SafeCare Augmented, meets the criteria established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for an “evidence-based early childhood home visiting service delivery model’ for the general population, but it does not meet the criteria for tribal populations. In addition, a module of SafeCare, Planned Activities Training, and a module with an add-on, Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training, demonstrate evidence of effectiveness.

SafeCare does not meet the HHS criteria for the general population or for tribal populations.

View Revisions

Model Description

SafeCare aims to prevent and address factors associated with child abuse and neglect among the clients served. Eligible clients include families with a history of child maltreatment or families at risk for child maltreatment. SafeCare is an adaption of Project 12-Ways. SafeCare was developed to offer a more streamlined and easy-to-disseminate intervention based on three key modules of Project 12-Ways.

SafeCare typically provides 18 to 22 weeks of training to parents with children from birth to age 5. Trained SafeCare providers conduct 50- to 90-minute weekly or biweekly home visits involving three modules: (1) Planned Activities Training, which focuses on parent-child/parent-infant interactions, (2) infant and child health, and (3) home safety. Each of the three SafeCare modules typically includes a baseline assessment and observations of parental knowledge and skills, four parent training sessions, and a follow-up assessment to monitor change. During the parent training sessions, SafeCare providers explain the rationale for a particular concept, model the concept, have the parent practice the steps, and then provide feedback. SafeCare providers are not required to meet specific education requirements.

Project 12-Ways, the precursor to SafeCare, offers training in twelve key topic areas: (1) parent-child interaction, (2) stress reduction for parents, (3) basic skills training for children, (4) money management, (5) social support, (6) home safety, (7) multi-setting behavior management, (8) infant and child health and nutrition, (9) problem solving, (10) marital discord counseling, (11) alcohol abuse referral, and (12) pre- and post-natal prevention services for young and unwed mothers. Direct services are delivered to families in their homes by highly-trained counselors, most of whom are advanced graduate students with specialized training.

This report includes reviews of two adaptations of SafeCare: (1) SafeCare Augmented and (2) an Australian adaptation of a version of SafeCare, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project. SafeCare Augmented adds Motivational Interviewing—a technique that explores and builds on an individual’s motivation to change—and additional training of providers on the identification and response to imminent child maltreatment and risk factors, such as substance use and depression. SafeCare Augmented was adapted for high-risk, rural communities. The Australian adaptation of the UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project adapted the UCLA Health and Safety interventions (created collaboratively with the SafeCare model developer, with identical goals and methods) for the Australian context (e.g., language was changed to reflect Australian usage). The goal of the intervention is to equip parents of young children with the knowledge and skills necessary for managing home dangers, accidents, and childhood illnesses. The intervention consists of 10 lessons over a 10- to 12-week period.

This report also includes reviews of a module of SafeCare, Planned Activities Training, and a module with an add-on, Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training. The Planned Activities Training module of SafeCare focuses on skills such as engaging in positive interactions and establishing rules and limits, and is administered to mothers during five home visiting sessions. Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training is an add-on to the Planned Activities Training module that adds encouragement and skill reinforcement via text messages and phone calls between in-home Planned Activities Training parent training sessions.

For more information, please read the Model Overview.

View Revisions

Extent of Evidence

SafeCare®
Results of Research and Review
Number of studies
Eligible for review
16
Rated high
0
Rated moderate
0
Rated low
12
Additional source1
4
SafeCare/Project 12-Ways: Home Safety Module
Results of Research and Review
Number of studies
Eligible for review
1
Rated high
0
Rated moderate
1
Rated low
0
Additional source1
0
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Results of Research and Review
Number of studies
Eligible for review
9
Rated high
2
Rated moderate
0
Rated low
6
Additional source1
1
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Results of Research and Review
Number of studies
Eligible for review
2
Rated high
2
Rated moderate
0
Rated low
0
Additional source1
0
SafeCare Augmented
Results of Research and Review
Number of studies
Eligible for review
1
Rated high
1
Rated moderate
0
Rated low
0
Additional source1
0
Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project
Results of Research and Review
Number of studies
Eligible for review
1
Rated high
0
Rated moderate
1
Rated low
0
Additional source1
0

For more information, see the study database. For more information on the criteria used to determine the study ratings, please read Producing Study Ratings.

View Revisions

Summary of Findings

Please read Describing Effects for more information on these categories. Only results from studies that meet the standards for the high or moderate ratings are included above.

View Revisions

Criteria Established by the Department of Health and Human Services

Information Based on Comprehensive Review of All High- and Moderate-Impact Studies for this Model
SafeCare®
High- or moderate-quality impact study?
Yes
Across high- or moderate-quality studies, favorable impacts in at least two outcome domains within one sample OR the same domain for at least two non-overlapping samples?
Yes
Favorable impacts on full sample?
Yes
Any favorable impacts on outcome measures sustained at least 12 months after model enrollment?1
Yes
One or more favorable, statistically significant impact reported in a peer-reviewed journal?1
Yes
SafeCare/Project 12-Ways: Home Safety Module
High- or moderate-quality impact study?
Yes
Across high- or moderate-quality studies, favorable impacts in at least two outcome domains within one sample OR the same domain for at least two non-overlapping samples?
No
Favorable impacts on full sample?
Yes
Any favorable impacts on outcome measures sustained at least 12 months after model enrollment?1
No
One or more favorable, statistically significant impact reported in a peer-reviewed journal?1
Yes
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
High- or moderate-quality impact study?
Yes
Across high- or moderate-quality studies, favorable impacts in at least two outcome domains within one sample OR the same domain for at least two non-overlapping samples?
Yes
Favorable impacts on full sample?
Yes
Any favorable impacts on outcome measures sustained at least 12 months after model enrollment?1
Yes
One or more favorable, statistically significant impact reported in a peer-reviewed journal?1
Yes
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
High- or moderate-quality impact study?
Yes
Across high- or moderate-quality studies, favorable impacts in at least two outcome domains within one sample OR the same domain for at least two non-overlapping samples?
Yes
Favorable impacts on full sample?
Yes
Any favorable impacts on outcome measures sustained at least 12 months after model enrollment?1
Yes
One or more favorable, statistically significant impact reported in a peer-reviewed journal?1
Yes
SafeCare Augmented
High- or moderate-quality impact study?
Yes
Across high- or moderate-quality studies, favorable impacts in at least two outcome domains within one sample OR the same domain for at least two non-overlapping samples?
Yes
Favorable impacts on full sample?
Yes
Any favorable impacts on outcome measures sustained at least 12 months after model enrollment?1
Yes
One or more favorable, statistically significant impact reported in a peer-reviewed journal?1
Yes
Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project
High- or moderate-quality impact study?
Yes
Across high- or moderate-quality studies, favorable impacts in at least two outcome domains within one sample OR the same domain for at least two non-overlapping samples?
No
Favorable impacts on full sample?
No
Any favorable impacts on outcome measures sustained at least 12 months after model enrollment?1
No
One or more favorable, statistically significant impact reported in a peer-reviewed journal?1
Yes

Please read the HHS Criteria for Evidence-Based Models for more information.

View Revisions