footnote162
Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
SafeCare®
Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2018
Model overview
Theoretical approach
SafeCare is a structured parenting intervention that is designed to address behaviors that can lead to child neglect and abuse. The model emphasizes learning in a social context and uses behavioral principles for parent training. SafeCare is an adaptation of Project 12-Ways that includes a subset of the Project 12-Ways modules. SafeCare was developed to offer a more easily disseminated and streamlined intervention to parents at risk for child abuse and neglect.
Project 12-Ways, the model SafeCare was based on, 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.
Model services
SafeCare includes one-on-one home visits between home visitors (referred to as providers) and families. SafeCare includes three modules: (1) infant and child health, (2) home safety, and (3) parent-infant/parent-child interactions (Planned Activities Training). The 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 safety module helps parents identify and eliminate safety and health hazards and teaches parents how to appropriately supervise their young children. The parent-infant/parent-child interactions (Planned Activities Training) module aims to teach parents how to provide engaging and stimulating activities, increase positive interactions, and prevent challenging child behaviors. Providers observe parents during daily routines and parent-infant/parent-child play. Providers reinforce positive behaviors with parents and address problematic ones. In addition, providers offer parents activity cards to encourage skill acquisition.
SafeCare providers follow structured protocols that cover the model’s three modules. Each module is designed to be implemented in 6 or fewer sessions (for a total of about 18 sessions). The three SafeCare modules typically include a baseline assessment and observation of parents’ 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 parent training sessions to instill target behaviors: (1) describe and explain the rationale for each behavior, (2) model that behavior, (3) ask the parent to practice the behavior, and (4) provide positive and constructive feedback. This approach is designed to help parents generalize skills across time, behaviors, and settings.
Intended population
SafeCare serves families with young children from birth through age 5 years. The model is designed to benefit families with risk factors for child maltreatment. Populations served include young parents; parents with multiple children; parents with a history of depression, other mental health problems, substance use, or intellectual disabilities; foster parents; parents involved with the child protective system for neglect or physical abuse; 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 has been used with culturally diverse populations.
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) 413-1387
Email: safecare@gsu.edu
Website: www.safecare.org
Effects shown in research
Maternal health
Findings rated high
256
SafeCare Augmented
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BDI-2 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 14.90 | Mean = 15.40 | Mean difference = -0.05 | HomVEE calculated = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| BDI-2 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 15.50 | Mean = 11.20 | Mean difference = 4.30 | HomVEE calculated = 0.31 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| DIS alcohol module | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| DIS alcohol module | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| DIS drug module | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| DIS drug module | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| SPS | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 40.10 | Mean = 38.80 | Mean difference = 1.30 | HomVEE calculated = 0.24 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| SPS | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 41.00 | Mean = 40.20 | Mean difference = 0.80 | HomVEE calculated = 0.14 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
257
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | |
| Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Posttest | Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 224 mothers | Adjusted mean = 7.52 | Adjusted mean = 8.70 | Mean difference = -1.59 | HomVEE calculated = -0.17 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Mild to severe depression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Mild to severe depression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
258
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 249 mothers | Adjusted mean = 8.37 | Adjusted mean = 8.25 | Mean difference = -0.50 | HomVEE calculated = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Posttest | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 251 mothers | Adjusted mean = 7.88 | Adjusted mean = 8.70 | Mean difference = -1.27 | HomVEE calculated = 0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Mild to severe depression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 249 mothers | Not available | Not available | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Mild to severe depression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Posttest | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 251 mothers | Percentage = 0.05 | Not available | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Posttest | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 258 mothers | Adjusted mean = 72.30 | Adjusted mean = 73.33 | Mean difference = -2.78 | HomVEE calculated = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Child development and school readiness
Findings rated high
257
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Adaptive Behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
| Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Externalizing Behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | HomVEE calculated = -0.21 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Internalizing Behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | HomVEE calculated = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
258
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Adaptive Behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 258 mothers | Adjusted mean = 50.27 | Adjusted mean = 48.28 | Mean difference = 0.77 | HomVEE calculated = 0.18 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Externalizing Behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 258 mothers | Adjusted mean = 48.96 | Adjusted mean = 49.85 | Mean difference = -1.44 | HomVEE calculated = -0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2-Parent Report Scale (BASC-2-PRS) - Internalizing Behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 258 mothers | Adjusted mean = 50.60 | Adjusted mean = 49.21 | Mean difference = -0.55 | HomVEE calculated = 0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
258
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | 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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors 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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors 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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. |
Findings rated moderate
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | 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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors 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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors 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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. |
Reductions in child maltreatment
Findings rated high
256
SafeCare Augmented
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAPI | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 166.50 | Mean = 170.80 | Mean difference = -4.30 | HomVEE calculated = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| CAPI | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 168.60 | Mean = 128.30 | Mean difference = 40.30 | HomVEE calculated = 0.38 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| CTS-PC, nonviolent discipline | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 55.20 | Mean = 50.50 | Mean difference = 4.70 | HomVEE calculated = 0.16 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
| CTS-PC, nonviolent discipline | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 52.00 | Mean = 51.60 | Mean difference = 0.40 | HomVEE calculated = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| CTS-PC, physical assault | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| CTS-PC, physical assault | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| CTS-PC, psychological aggression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| CTS-PC, psychological aggression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Referral to child welfare where child was removed from the home | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
716 days | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Positive parenting practices
Findings rated high
257
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
| Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
| Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
| Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
258
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
| Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
| Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
| Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 |
258
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors 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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. |
Findings rated moderate
SafeCare/Project 12-Ways: Home Safety Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Hazardous Items | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
2-3 weeks | Project 12-Ways | 3 families | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not reported | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Going to the doctor | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 2.85 | Mean = 2.00 | Mean difference = 0.85 | HomVEE calculated = 0.78 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 2.85 | Mean = 2.20 | Mean difference = 0.65 | HomVEE calculated = 0.59 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 2.85 | Mean = 1.75 | Mean difference = 1.10 | HomVEE calculated = 0.92 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 5.10 | Mean = 4.91 | Mean difference = 0.19 | HomVEE calculated = 0.16 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 5.10 | Mean = 5.80 | Mean difference = -0.70 | HomVEE calculated = -0.71 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 5.10 | Mean = 5.50 | Mean difference = -0.40 | HomVEE calculated = -0.36 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 76.25 | Mean = 57.33 | Mean difference = 18.92 | HomVEE calculated = 1.50 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 76.25 | Mean = 55.70 | Mean difference = 20.55 | HomVEE calculated = 2.02 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 76.25 | Mean = 54.82 | Mean difference = 21.43 | HomVEE calculated = 1.65 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 78.85 | Mean = 45.33 | Mean difference = 33.52 | HomVEE calculated = 1.92 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 78.85 | Mean = 47.10 | Mean difference = 31.75 | HomVEE calculated = 1.91 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 78.85 | Mean = 48.91 | Mean difference = 29.94 | HomVEE calculated = 1.75 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 60.35 | Mean = 45.67 | Mean difference = 14.68 | HomVEE calculated = 0.67 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 60.35 | Mean = 53.30 | Mean difference = 7.05 | HomVEE calculated = 0.35 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 60.35 | Mean = 48.73 | Mean difference = 11.62 | HomVEE calculated = 0.60 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 12.95 | Mean = 9.36 | Mean difference = 3.59 | HomVEE calculated = 1.09 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 12.95 | Mean = 10.50 | Mean difference = 2.45 | HomVEE calculated = 0.69 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 12.95 | Mean = 10.80 | Mean difference = 2.15 | HomVEE calculated = 0.62 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 4.95 | Mean = 3.25 | Mean difference = 1.70 | HomVEE calculated = 0.88 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 4.95 | Mean = 3.00 | Mean difference = 1.95 | HomVEE calculated = 0.98 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 4.95 | Mean = 1.91 | Mean difference = 3.04 | HomVEE calculated = 1.79 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 2.15 | Mean = 1.75 | Mean difference = 0.40 | HomVEE calculated = 0.46 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 2.15 | Mean = 1.00 | Mean difference = 1.15 | HomVEE calculated = 1.30 | Not available | footnote89Author-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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 2.15 | Mean = 1.27 | Mean difference = 0.88 | HomVEE calculated = 0.97 | Not available | footnote89Author-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. |
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors 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 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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 | footnote300Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. |
Linkages and referrals
Findings rated high
256
SafeCare Augmented
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Referrals/linkages to additional services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.50 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.00 | Mean difference = 0.50 | Not available | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
Family economic self-sufficiency
Findings rated high
256
SafeCare Augmented
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRS-R | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 136.00 | Mean = 138.60 | Mean difference = -2.60 | HomVEE calculated = -0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| FRS-R | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 149.70 | Mean = 141.20 | Mean difference = 8.50 | HomVEE calculated = 0.40 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime
Findings rated high
256
SafeCare Augmented
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTS2 victimization, negotiation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 53.60 | Mean = 50.00 | Mean difference = 3.60 | HomVEE calculated = 0.08 | Statistically significant, p < 0.001 | |
| CTS2 victimization, negotiation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 51.10 | Mean = 54.30 | Mean difference = -3.20 | HomVEE calculated = -0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| CTS2 victimization, partnered | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
10 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 0.48 | Mean = 0.76 | Mean difference = -0.28 | HomVEE calculated = -0.75 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| CTS2 victimization, partnered | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
17 months | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Mean = 0.62 | Mean = 0.72 | Mean difference = -0.10 | HomVEE calculated = -0.28 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Referral to child welfare for domestic violence | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
716 days | Rural Southwest | 105 families | Unadjusted proportion = 0.00 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.12 | Mean difference = -0.12 | Not available | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 | Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
In brief
Evidence of model effectiveness
| Title | General population | Tribal population | Domains with favorable effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| SafeCare® | Does not meet HHS criteria because there are no high- or moderate-rated effectiveness studies of the model. | Does not meet HHS criteria for tribal population because the model has not been evaluated with a tribal population. |
|
| SafeCare Augmented |  Meets HHS criteria
|
Does not meet HHS criteria for tribal population because the model has not been evaluated with a tribal population. |
|
| Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project | Does not meet HHS criteria because the findings from high- or moderate-rated effectiveness studies of the model do not meet all required criteria. | Does not meet HHS criteria for tribal population because the model has not been evaluated with a tribal population. |
|
Model description
SafeCare aims to improve (1) parental health decision making skills, (2) the safety of the home environment, and (3) parenting skills and parent-infant/parent-child interactions. SafeCare serves families with young children from birth through age 5 years. It was specifically designed to benefit families with risk factors for child maltreatment. SafeCare is an adaption of Project 12-Ways that includes a subset of the Project 12-Ways modules. SafeCare was developed to offer a more streamlined and easy-to-disseminate intervention.
SafeCare is typically delivered in 18 or fewer sessions. Trained SafeCare providers conduct 60-minute weekly or biweekly home visits involving three modules: (1) infant and child health, (2) home safety, and (3) parent-infant/parent-child interactions (Planned Activities Training). Each of the three SafeCare modules typically includes a baseline assessment to observe parents’ 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 each target behavior, model that behavior, ask the parent to practice the behavior, and then provide feedback. SafeCare providers are not required to meet specific education requirements.
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 for providers on identifying and responding 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 modified that program’s health and safety interventions (created collaboratively with the SafeCare model developer, with identical goals and methods) to fit an Australian context (for example, 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 SafeCare’s parent-infant/parent-child interactions (Planned Activities Training) module and an add-on to that module, Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training. The parent-infant/parent-child interactions (Planned Activities Training) module focuses on skills such as engaging in positive interactions and establishing rules and limits, and is administered to mothers during five sessions at families’ homes. Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training adds encouragement and skill reinforcement via text messages and phone calls between in-home parent-infant/parent-child interactions (Planned Activities Training) sessions.
Extent of evidence
For more information, see the research database. For more information on the criteria used to rate research, please see details of HomVEE’s methods and standards.