NCT01391754

Brief Summary

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

Registry Overview

Registry-reported information. Elapsed time and enrollment totals alone do not measure study progress or recruitment pace.

Recruitment status
completed
Actual enrollment (reported)
2,175 participants
Study completion date

September 2007

Actual (reported)
Listed locations
1 countries · 3 sites

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Dates and qualifiers reported by the registry. Estimated dates do not confirm that a milestone has occurred.

  1. Study Start

    October 2003

    Date type not reported

    This date has not been verified as actual or estimated.

  2. Primary Completion

    September 2007

    Actual (reported)

  3. Study Completion

    September 2007

    Actual (reported)

  4. First Submitted

    June 29, 2011

    Actual (reported)

  5. First Posted

    July 12, 2011

    Actual (reported)
Last Updated
July 12, 2011
Status Verified
July 2011
Last Update Submitted
July 8, 2011

Conditions

Child Neglect

Keywords

child abuse

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Child welfare system recidivism

    Follow-up for recidivism reports to child welfare, captured from administrative data maintained by the state child welfare system

    Up to 2766 days

Secondary Outcomes (5)

  • Child Abuse Potential Inventory

    Approximately 180 days and 365 days

  • Family Resources Scale

    Approximately 180 and 365 days

  • Beck Depression Inventory

    Approximately 180 and 365 days

  • Social Provisions Scale

    Approximately 180 and 356 days

  • Diagnostic Interview Schedule--Drug and Alcohol Disorders Module

    Approximately 180 and 365 days

Study Arms (4)

SafeCare with Coached Implementation

EXPERIMENTAL

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

Behavioral: SafeCareOther: In vivo coached quality control

SafeCare without Coaching

EXPERIMENTAL

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

Behavioral: SafeCareOther: Uncoached

Services As Usual with Coaching

EXPERIMENTAL

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

Other: In vivo coached quality controlBehavioral: Services As Usual

Services As Usual Without Coaching

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Usual home based services without in vivo coached quality control

Behavioral: Services As UsualOther: Uncoached

Interventions

SafeCareBEHAVIORAL

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

SafeCare with Coached ImplementationSafeCare without Coaching
In vivo coached quality controlOTHER

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

SafeCare with Coached ImplementationServices As Usual with Coaching
Services As UsualBEHAVIORAL

Home based services not using the SafeCare model

Services As Usual Without CoachingServices As Usual with Coaching
UncoachedOTHER

No in vivo coached quality control or fidelity monitoring

SafeCare without CoachingServices As Usual Without Coaching

Eligibility Criteria

Age14 Years - 75 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsChild (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

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

You may not qualify if:

  • Parents in the child welfare system for sexual abuse

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (3)

Eastern Oklahoma Youth Services

McAlester, Oklahoma, 74501, United States

Location

NorthCare

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73112, United States

Location

Family and Children's Services

Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74120, United States

Location

Related Publications (3)

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

    PMID: 19309186RESULT

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

    PMID: 21632109RESULT

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

    PMID: 21493617RESULT

Study Officials

  • Mark Chaffin, PhD

    University of Oklahoma

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Enrollment

2,175 participants — actual enrollment reported by the registry.

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
NONE
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
FACTORIAL
Sponsor Type
OTHER

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

June 29, 2011

First Posted

July 12, 2011

Study Start

October 2003

Date type not reported

This date has not been verified as actual or estimated.

Primary Completion

September 2007

Actual (reported)

Study Completion

September 2007

Actual (reported)

Last Updated

July 12, 2011

Record last verified: 2011-07

Locations

US(3)