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

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

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

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