Comparing the Effectiveness of Home-based and Group-Care Programs for Children and Young People: The Challenge and Path Forward

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2020-04-30 DOI:10.1080/0886571X.2020.1746948

J. Huefner, F. Ainsworth

{"title":"Comparing the Effectiveness of Home-based and Group-Care Programs for Children and Young People: The Challenge and Path Forward","authors":"J. Huefner, F. Ainsworth","doi":"10.1080/0886571X.2020.1746948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is not unusual to see research studies or published opinion pieces that claim to demonstrate that home-based interventions (HBI) are more effective than group-care (GC) programs for young people with emotional and behavioral difficulties. The claim about the comparative effectiveness of HBIs in contrast to GC programs can only be true if they serve the same population of young people by age, gender, and degree of emotional and behavioral difficulties and that the outcomes for HBIs are statistically significantly better than those for GC. There is a long-standing argument between those who think that GC programs are unnecessary in comparison to those who think a mature child welfare system will always need some GC programs, albeit for a few young people with extreme difficulties. This article explores this issue in terms of how legitimate comparisons can be made between these two forms of service and how case-mix adjustment provides an established method for doing this. The purpose is to move away from ideological posturing by advocates from either side of the argument and put the debate about these forms of service and their effectiveness onto a firmer evidence base.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0886571X.2020.1746948","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2020.1746948","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT It is not unusual to see research studies or published opinion pieces that claim to demonstrate that home-based interventions (HBI) are more effective than group-care (GC) programs for young people with emotional and behavioral difficulties. The claim about the comparative effectiveness of HBIs in contrast to GC programs can only be true if they serve the same population of young people by age, gender, and degree of emotional and behavioral difficulties and that the outcomes for HBIs are statistically significantly better than those for GC. There is a long-standing argument between those who think that GC programs are unnecessary in comparison to those who think a mature child welfare system will always need some GC programs, albeit for a few young people with extreme difficulties. This article explores this issue in terms of how legitimate comparisons can be made between these two forms of service and how case-mix adjustment provides an established method for doing this. The purpose is to move away from ideological posturing by advocates from either side of the argument and put the debate about these forms of service and their effectiveness onto a firmer evidence base.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较儿童和青少年家庭护理和团体护理计划的有效性：挑战和前进道路

对于有情绪和行为困难的年轻人来说，以家庭为基础的干预(HBI)比团体护理(GC)计划更有效，这是很常见的研究或发表的观点。关于hbi与GC方案的比较有效性的说法只有在它们服务于相同的年龄、性别、情感和行为困难程度的年轻人群体，并且hbi的结果在统计上明显优于GC的情况下才是正确的。一些人认为GC项目是不必要的，而另一些人则认为成熟的儿童福利系统总是需要一些GC项目，尽管是针对一些有极端困难的年轻人。本文将探讨如何在这两种服务形式之间进行合理的比较，以及案例组合调整如何提供一种既定的方法来进行比较。这样做的目的是为了摆脱争论双方倡导者的意识形态姿态，并将关于这些服务形式及其有效性的辩论置于更坚实的证据基础之上。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.