The Safe Environment for Every Kid Model: Impact on Pediatric Primary Care Professionals

Department of Pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 520 W Lombard St, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.47). 03/2011; 127(4):e962-70. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-1845
Source: PubMed


To examine whether the Safe Environment for Every Kid (SEEK) model of enhanced primary care would improve the attitudes, knowledge, comfort, competence, and behavior of child health care professionals (HPs) regarding addressing major risk factors for child maltreatment (CM).
In a cluster randomized controlled trial, 18 private practices were assigned to intervention (SEEK) or control groups. SEEK HPs received training on CM risk factors (eg, maternal depression). The SEEK model included the parent screening questionnaire and the participation of a social worker. SEEK's impact was evaluated in 3 ways: (1) the health professional questionnaire (HPQ), which assessed HPs' attitudes and practice regarding the targeted problems; (2) observations of HPs conducting checkups; and (3) review of children's medical records.
The 102 HPs averaged 45 years of age; 68% were female, and 74% were in suburban practices. Comparing baseline scores with 6-, 18-, and 36-month follow-up data, the HPQ revealed significant (P < .05) improvement in the SEEK group compared with controls on addressing depression (6 months), substance abuse (18 months), intimate partner violence (6 and 18 months), and stress (6, 18, and 36 months), and in their comfort level and perceived competence (both at 6, 18, and 36 months). SEEK HPs screened for targeted problems more often than did controls based on observations 24 months after the initial training and the medical records (P < .001).
The SEEK model led to significant and sustained improvement in several areas. This is a crucial first step in helping HPs address major psychosocial problems that confront many families. SEEK offers a modest yet promising enhancement of primary care.

Download full-text


Available from: Wendy G Lane,
  • Source
    • "There is also evidence from low-, middle-, and high-income settings of the potential for parenting interventions to improve parent–child relationships, child conduct disorders, and reduce harsh parenting (Cooper et al., 2009; Gardner, Burton, & Klimes, 2006; Knerr, Gardner, & Cluver, 2013). Limited, though increasing evidence is also available on the potential for interventions that are designed to prevent child maltreatment to impact outcomes related to IPV (Dubowitz et al., 2011; Duggan et al., 1999; Sim et al., 2014) which may prove particularly valuable as interventions to prevent child maltreatment may be less effective in households where IPV occurs (Guedes & Mikton, 2013). To our knowledge there is currently no evidence from rigorously-evaluated community-level interventions on the impact of IPV prevention interventions on children's well-being and exposure to violence. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment often co-occur in households and lead to negative outcomes for children. This article explores the extent to which SASA!, an intervention to prevent violence against women, impacted children's exposure to violence. Between 2007 and 2012 a cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in Kampala, Uganda. An adjusted cluster-level intention to treat analysis, compares secondary outcomes in intervention and control communities at follow-up. Under the qualitative evaluation, 82 in-depth interviews were audio recorded at follow-up, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis complemented by constant comparative methods. This mixed-methods article draws mainly on the qualitative data. The findings suggest that SASA! impacted on children's experience of violence in three main ways. First, quantitative data suggest that children's exposure to IPV was reduced. We estimate that reductions in IPV combined with reduced witnessing by children when IPV did occur, led to a 64% reduction in prevalence of children witnessing IPV in their home (aRR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06-2.20). Second, among couples who experienced reduced IPV, qualitative data suggests parenting and discipline practices sometimes also changed-improving parent-child relationships and for a few parents, resulting in the complete rejection of corporal punishment as a disciplinary method. Third, some participants reported intervening to prevent violence against children. The findings suggest that interventions to prevent IPV may also impact on children's exposure to violence, and improve parent-child relationships. They also point to potential synergies for violence prevention, an area meriting further exploration.
    Child abuse & neglect 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.003 · 2.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Single or multiple training sessions involving multiple 'modes' of delivery (e.g., video, role-play, etc.), including exchange between recipients and facilitators Allert, 1997; Barber-Madden, 1983; Davila, 2006; Hazzard, 1984; Kleemeier, 1988; Lo Fo Wong, 2006; McCosker, 1999; Nicolaidis, 2005; Salmon, 2006; Schoening, 2004; Shefet, 2007; Wathen, 2011 Generally effective at improving knowledge/attitude and behavioural outcomes, evidence for knowledge/ attitude outcomes is stronger Complex/multifaceted 15(26%) Intensive, multi-component interventions, usually over extended period of time Berger, 2002; Bonds, 2006; Campbell, 2001; Cerezo, 2004; Cyr, 2009; Dresser, 2012; Dubowitz, 2011; Feder, 2011; Heyman, 2009; Janssen, 2002; Paluzzi, 2000; Rischke, 2011; Thompson, 2000; Whitaker, 2012; Zachary, 2002 Generally effective at improving knowledge/attitude and behaviour/ behavioural intention outcomes (but most behavioural evidence is for screening or identification rates) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment (CM) are major social and public health problems. Knowledge translation (KT) of best available research evidence has been suggested as a strategy to improve the care of those exposed to violence, however research on how best to promote the uptake and use of IPV and CM evidence for policy and practice is limited. Our research asked: 1) What is the extent of IPV/CM-specific KT research? 2) What KT strategies effectively translate IPV/CM knowledge? and 3) What are the barriers and facilitators relevant to translating IPV/CM-specific knowledge? Methods: We conducted an integrative review to summarize and synthesize the available evidence regarding IPV/CM-specific KT research. We employed multiple search methods, including database searches of Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Medline (through April, 2013). Eligibility and quality assessments for each article were conducted by at least two team members. Included articles were analyzed quantitatively using descriptive statistics and qualitatively using descriptive content analysis. Results: Of 1230 identified articles, 62 were included in the review, including 5 review articles. KT strategies were generally successful at improving various knowledge/attitude and behavioural/behavioural intention outcomes, but the heterogeneity among KT strategies, recipients, study designs and measured outcomes made it difficult to draw specific conclusions. Four key themes were identified: existing measurement tools and promising/effective KT strategies are underused, KT efforts are rarely linked to health-related outcomes for those exposed to violence, there is a lack of evidence regarding the long-term effectiveness of KT interventions, and authors' inferences about barriers, facilitators, and effective/ineffective KT strategies are often not supported by data. The emotional and sometimes contested nature of the knowledge appears to be an important barrier unique to IPV/CM KT. Conclusions: To direct future KT in this area, we present a guiding framework that highlights the need for implementers to use/adapt promising KT strategies that carefully consider contextual factors, including the fact that content in IPV/CM may be more difficult to engage with than other health topics. The framework also provides guidance regarding use of measurement tools and designs to more effectively evaluate and report on KT efforts.
    BMC Public Health 08/2014; 14(1):862. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-14-862 · 2.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Robinson-Whelan 2010 was not conducted in a healthcare setting. Three studies (Dubowitz 2011; Feigelman 2011; Dubowitz 2012) were excluded as they were targeted at children and clinicians. Three studies (Bair-Merritt 2006; Houry 2011; Klevens 2012b) were excluded as the results were not passed on to the healthcare professional according to our criteria. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) damages individuals, their children, communities, and the wider economic and social fabric of society. Some governments and professional organisations recommend screening all women for intimate partner violence rather than asking only women with symptoms (case-finding); however, what is the evidence that screening interventions will increase identification, and referral to support agencies, or improve women's subsequent wellbeing and not cause harm? To assess the effectiveness of screening for intimate partner violence conducted within healthcare settings for identification, referral to support agencies and health outcomes for women. We searched the following databases in July 2012: CENTRAL (2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1948 to September Week June Week 3 2012), EMBASE (1980 to Week 28 2012), MEDLINE In-Process (3 July 2012), DARE (2012, Issue 2), CINAHL (1937 to current), PsycINFO (1806 to June Week 4 2012), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to current) and ASSIA (1987 to October 2010). In addition we searched the following trials registers: metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (to July 2012), and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP),, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register to August 2010. We also searched the reference lists of articles and websites of relevant organisations. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of IPV screening where healthcare professionals screened women face-to-face or were informed of results of screening questionnaires, compared with usual care ( which included screening for other purposes). Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and undertook data extraction. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standardised estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data, either a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). All are presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We included 11 trials that recruited 13,027 women overall. Six of 10 studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias.When data from six comparable studies were combined (n = 3564), screening increased identification of victims/survivors (RR 2.33; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.89), particularly in antenatal settings (RR 4.26; 95% CI 1.76 to 10.31).Only three studies measured referrals to support agencies (n = 1400). There is no evidence that screening increases such referrals, as although referral numbers increased in the screened group, actual numbers were very small and crossed the line of no effect (RR 2.67; 95% CI 0.99 to 7.20).Only two studies measured women's experience of violence after screening (one at three months, the other at six, 12 and 18 months after screening) and found no significant reduction of abuse.Only one study measured adverse effects and data from this study suggested that screening may not cause harm. This same study showed a trend towards mental health benefit, but the results did not reach statistical significance.There was insufficient evidence on which to judge whether screening increases take up of specialist services, and no studies included economic evaluation. Screening is likely to increase identification rates but rates of referral to support agencies are low and as yet we know little about the proportions of false measurement (negatives or positives). Screening does not appear to cause harm, but only one study examined this outcome. As there is an absence of evidence of long-term benefit for women, there is insufficient evidence to justify universal screening in healthcare settings. Studies comparing screening versus case finding (with or without advocacy or therapeutic interventions) for women's long-term wellbeing would better inform future policies in healthcare settings.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 04/2013; 4(4):CD007007. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007007.pub2 · 6.03 Impact Factor
Show more