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

IF 1 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
J. Huefner, F. Ainsworth
{"title":"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","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":45491,"journal":{"name":"Residential Treatment for Children & Youth","volume":"39 1","pages":"3 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"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":"{\"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\":45491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Residential Treatment for Children & Youth\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"3 - 15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"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\":\"Residential Treatment for Children & Youth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2020.1746948\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Residential Treatment for Children & Youth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2020.1746948","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

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。
Comparing the Effectiveness of Home-based and Group-Care Programs for Children and Young People: The Challenge and Path Forward
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
33.30%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信