The protocol for the Families First Edmonton trial (FFE): a randomized community-based trial to compare four service integration approaches for families with low-income

Jane Drummond, Laurie Schnirer, Sylvia So, Maria Mayan, Deanna L Williamson, Jeffrey Bisanz, Konrad Fassbender, Natasha Wiebe, Jane Drummond, Laurie Schnirer, Sylvia So, Maria Mayan, Deanna L Williamson, Jeffrey Bisanz, Konrad Fassbender, Natasha Wiebe

Abstract

Background: Families with low incomes experience an array of health and social challenges that compromise their resilience and lead to negative family outcomes. Along with financial constraints, there are barriers associated with mental and physical health, poorer education and language. In addition, vulnerable populations experience many services as markedly unhelpful. This combination of family and service barriers results in reduced opportunities for effective, primary-level services and an increased use of more expensive secondary-level services (e.g., emergency room visits, child apprehensions, police involvement). A systematic review of effective interventions demonstrated that promotion of physical and mental health using existing service was critically important.

Methods/design: The Families First Edmonton Trial (FFE) tests four service integration approaches to increase use of available health and social services for families with low-income. It is a randomized, two-factor, single-blind, longitudinal effectiveness trial where low-income families (1168) were randomly assigned to receive either (1) Family Healthy Lifestyle plus Family Recreation service integration (Comprehensive), (2) Family Healthy Lifestyle service integration, (3) Family Recreation service integration, or (4) existing services. To be eligible families needed to be receiving one of five government income assistance programs. The trial was conducted in the City of Edmonton between January 2006 and August 2011. The families were followed for a total of three years of which interventional services were received for between 18 and 24 months. The primary outcome is the number of family linkages to health and social services as measured by a customized survey tool "Family Services Inventory". Secondary outcomes include type and satisfaction with services, cost of services, family member health, and family functioning. Where possible, the measures for secondary outcomes were selected because of their standardization, the presence of published norming data, and their utility as comparators to other studies of low-income families. As an effectiveness trial, community and government partners participated in all committees through a mutually agreed upon governance model and helped manage and problem solve with researchers.

Discussion: Modifications were made to the FFE trial based on the pragmatics of community-based trials.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00705328.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant flow.

References

    1. Reiss F. Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2013;14:24–31.
    1. Canadian Institute of Child Health (CICH) The health of Canada’s children: A CICH profile. 3. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Child Health; 2000.
    1. Spady DW, Schopflocher DP, Svenson LW, Thompson AH. Prevalence of mental disorders in children living in Alberta, Canada, as determined from physician billing data. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;14(10):1153–1159. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.155.10.1153.
    1. Guttmann A. Child poverty, health and health care use in Canada. Paediatr Child Health. 2001;14(8):509–513.
    1. Dooley M, Stewart J. Family income and child outcomes in Canada. Can J Econ. 2004;14(4):898–917. doi: 10.1111/j.0008-4085.2004.00253.x.
    1. Yoshikawa H, Aber JL, Beardslee WR. The effects of poverty on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children and youth. Am Psychol. 2012;14(4):272–284.
    1. Lipman EL, Offord DR, Boyle MH. What if we could eliminate child poverty? the theoretical effect on child psychosocial morbidity. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1996;14(5):303–307.
    1. Ross DO, Roberts PW. Income and child well-being: a new perspective on the poverty debate. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development; 1999.
    1. Willms JD. Vulnerable children: findings from Canada’s national longitudinal survey of children & youth. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta; 2002.
    1. David P. Ross, Mark Kelly, Katherine Scott. Child poverty: what are the consequences? Kanata: Canadian Council on Social Development; 1996.
    1. Brooks-Gunn Jeanne, Greg J.Duncan, Pia Rebello Britto. Are socioeconomic gradients for children similar to those for adults? achievement and health of children in the united states. In: Daniel P. Keating, Clyde Hertzman, editor. Developmental health and the wealth of nations: social, biological, and educational dynamics. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 94–124.
    1. Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J, Klebanov PK. Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Dev. 1994;14(2, Children and Poverty):296–318. doi: 10.2307/1131385.
    1. Wade TJ, Pevalin DJ, Brannigan A. The clustering of severe behavioural, health and educational deficits in Canadian children: preliminary evidence from the national longitudinal survey of children and youth. Can J Public Health. 1999;14(4):253–259.
    1. Evans GW. The environment of childhood poverty. Am Psychol. 2004;14(2):77–92.
    1. Alberta Health and Wellness, Office of the Chief Medical Officer. Let’s talk about the early years: early childhood development. [ ]
    1. Luthar SS. Poverty and Children’s adjustment. Developmental clinical psychology and psychiatry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1999.
    1. Zaslow M, Moore KA, Tout K, Scarpa J, Vandivere S. In: Welfare reform: The next Act. Volume 32. Weil A, Finegold K, editor. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 2002. How are children faring under health reform? pp. 79–101.
    1. Browne G, Byrne C, Roberts J, Schuster M, Ewart B, Gafni A, Watt S, Ashford Y, Jamieson E. Resilience and vulnerability in mothers and children receiving social assistance: prevalence, correlates, and expenditures. Clin Excellence Nurse Pract. 1997;14(5):312–323.
    1. Jayakody R, Stauffer D. Mental health problems among single mothers: implications for work and welfare reform. J Soc Iss. 2000;14(4):617–634. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00188.
    1. Lennon MC, Blome J, English K. Depression among women on welfare: a review of the literature. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2002;14(1):27–31. 40.
    1. Michalopoulos C, Schwartz C, Adams-Ciardullo D. What works best for whom: Impacts of 20 welfare-to-work programs by subgroup. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation; 2000.
    1. Morris PA, Huston AC, Duncan GJ, Crosby DA, Bos JM. How welfare and work policies affect children: A synthesis of research. New York; NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation; 2001.
    1. Sweeney EP. Recent studies indicate that many parents who are current or former welfare recipients have disabilities or other medical conditions. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; 2000.
    1. Browne G, Byrne C, Roberts J, Gafni A, Whittaker S. When the bough breaks: provider-initiated comprehensive care is more effective and less expensive for sole-support parents on social assistance. Soc Sci Med. 2001;14(12):1697–1710. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00455-X.
    1. World Health Organization. The determinants of health. [ ]
    1. Public Health Agency of Canada. What determines health? [ ]
    1. Canadian Medical Association. Health care in Canada: what makes Us sick? [ ]
    1. Statistics Canada. Perspectives on labour and income: trends in employment and wages, 2002 to 2007. [ ]
    1. Statistics Canada. Income of Canadian families, 2001 census. [ ]
    1. National Council of Welfare. Poverty profile 1999. [ ]
    1. Sauvé R. The current state of Canadian family finances – 2011–12. Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family; 2012.
    1. The Vanier Institute of the Family. Profiling Canada’s families II. Ottawa, Canada: Vanier Institute of the Family; 2000.
    1. Capital Health. Annual report of the medical officer of health: How healthy are we? 2003. Edmonton: Capital Health; 2003.
    1. Government of Alberta. Guide to services for lower-income Albertans. Edmonton, Canada: Government of Alberta; 2004.
    1. Government A. Alberta’s social policy framework. Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Government; 2013.
    1. Alberta Treasury Board and Finance. Results-based budgeting. [ ]
    1. Beauvais C, Jenson J. Two policy paradigms: family responsibility and investing in children. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks; 1998.
    1. Gorlick C, Brethour G. Welfare-To-work programs: A national inventory. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Social Development; 1998.
    1. Shillington ER, Dennis D, Drummond A, Krahn H. Social assistance and paid employment in Alberta, 1993–1996. Edmonton, Alta: University of Alberta, Population Research Laboratory; 1998.
    1. Vosko L. In: Citizens or consumers?: social policy in a market society. Antony WA, Broad D, editor. Halifax, NS: Fernwood; 1999. Workfare temporaries: workfare and the rise of the temporary employment relationship in ontari; pp. 184–204.
    1. Morris P, Michalopoulos C. Findings from the self-sufficiency project: effects on children and adolescents of a program that increased employment and income. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2003;14(2):201–239. doi: 10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00045-5.
    1. Ford R, Gyarmati D, Foley K, Tattrie D, Jimenez L. Can work incentives Pay for themselves? final report on the self-sufficiency project for welfare applicants. Ottawa: Social REsearch Demonstration Corportation; 2003.
    1. Bloom D, Michalopoulos C. Manpower demonstration RC: How welfare and work policies affect employment and income: A synthesis of research. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation; 2001.
    1. Michalopoulos C, Social Research and DC. Making work Pay: final report on the self-sufficiency project for long-term welfare recipients. Ottawa, Canada: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation; 2002.
    1. Gennetian LA, Miller C. Children and welfare reform: a view from an experimental welfare program in Minnesota. Child Dev. 2002;14(2):601–620. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00426.
    1. Brooten D, Youngblut JM, Brown L, Finkler SA, Neff DF, Madigan E. A randomized trial of nurse specialist home care for women with high-risk pregnancies: outcomes and costs. Am J Manag Care. 2001;14(8):793–803.
    1. Chase-Lansdale PL, Moffitt RA, Lohman BJ, Cherlin AJ, Coley RL, Pittman LD, Roff J, Votruba-Drzal E. Mothers’ transitions from welfare to work and the well-being of preschoolers and adolescents. Science. 2003;14(5612):1548–1552. doi: 10.1126/science.1076921.
    1. Gibson M, Thomson H, Banas K, Bambra C, Fenton C, Bond L. Welfare to work interventions and their effects on health and well-being of lone parents and their children. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2012. p. CD009820. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009820.
    1. Wright S. Welfare-to-work, agency and personal responsibility. J Soc Policy. 2012;14(2):309–328. doi: 10.1017/S0047279411001000.
    1. Gazso A. Moral codes of mothering and the introduction of welfare-to-work in Ontario. Can Rev Sociol. 2012;14(1):26–49.
    1. Fothergill S. Welfare-to-work isn’t working. People, Place Policy. 2013;14(2):61–65. doi: 10.3351/ppp.0007.0002.0002.
    1. Breitkreuz RS, Williamson DL, Raine KD. Dis-integrated policy: welfare-to-work participants’ experiences of integrating paid work and unpaid family work. Community, Work & Fam. 2010;14(1):43–69. doi: 10.1080/13668800902923753.
    1. Cook K. Neoliberalism, welfare policy and health: a qualitative meta-synthesis of single parents’ experience of the transition from welfare to work. Health (LOND) 2012;14(5):507–530. doi: 10.1177/1363459311434650.
    1. Vickery DM, Kalmer H, Lowry D, Constantine M, Wright E, Loren W. Effect of a self-care education program on medical visits. JAMA. 1983;14(21):2952–2956. doi: 10.1001/jama.1983.03340210050024.
    1. Browne G, Scarpa J, Ewart B, Schuster M, Edwardh J, Boily L. In: Our children’s future: child care policy in Canada. Cleveland G, Krashinsky M, editor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, c2001; 2000. Investments in comprehensive programming: services for children and single parent mothers on welfare Pay for themselves within One year; pp. 334–346.
    1. Lorig K, Kraines RG, Brown BW Jr, Richardson N. A workplace health education program that reduces outpatient visits. Med Care. 1985;14(9):1044–1054. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198509000-00003.
    1. Golaszewski T, Snow D, Lynch W, Yen L, Solomita D. A benefit-to-cost analysis of a work-site health promotion program. J Occup Med. 1992;14(12):1164–1172.
    1. Lorig KR, Mazonson PD, Holman HR. Evidence suggesting that health education for self-management in patients with chronic arthritis has sustained health benefits while reducing health care costs. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;14(4):439–446. doi: 10.1002/art.1780360403.
    1. Bischoff R, Sprenkle D. Dropping out of marriage and family therapy: a critical review of research. Fam Process. 1993;14(3):353–375. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1993.00353.x.
    1. Britton JA, Gammon MD, Kelsey JL, Brogan DJ, Coates RJ, Schoenberg JB, Potischman N, Swanson CA, Stanford JL, Brinton LA. Characteristics associated with recent recreational exercise among women 20 to 44 years of age. Women Health. 2000;14(2–3):81–96.
    1. Steele L, Dewa C, Lee K. Socioeconomic status and self-reported barriers to mental health service Use. Can J Psychiatr. 2007;14(3):201–206.
    1. Janicke DM, Finney JW, Riley AW. Children’s health care use: a prospective investigation of factors related to care-seeking. Med Care. 2001;14(9):990–1001. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200109000-00009.
    1. Offord DR, Boyle MH, Szatmari P, Rae-Grant NI, Links PS, Cadman DT, Byles JA, Crawford JW, Blum HM, Byrne C. Ontario child health study. II. Six-month prevalence of disorder and rates of service utilization. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1987;14(9):832–836. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1987.01800210084013.
    1. Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, Nelson CB, Hughes M, Eshleman S, Wittchen HU, Kendler KS. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the united states. Results from the national comorbidity survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;14(1):8–19. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950010008002.
    1. Olds D, Kitzman H, Cole R, Robinson J. Theoretical foundations of a program of home visitation for pregnant women and parents of young children. J Community Psychol. 1997;14(1):9–25. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199701)25:1<9::AID-JCOP2>;2-V.
    1. Osborn RN, Hagedoorn J. The institutionalization and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. Acad Manage J. 1997;14(2, Special Research Forum on Alliances and Networks):261–278. doi: 10.2307/256883.
    1. Oliver AL, Ebers M. Networking network studies: an analysis of conceptual configurations in the study of inter-organizational relationships. Organ Stud. 1998;14(4):549–583. doi: 10.1177/017084069801900402.
    1. Browne G, Roberts J, Byrne C, Gafni A, Weir R, Majumdar B. The costs and effects of addressing the needs of vulnerable populations: results of 10 years of research. Can J Nurs Res. 2001;14(1):65–76.
    1. Browne G, Roberts J, Gafni A, Haldane S, Thomas I, Schuster M, Underwood J, Watt S, Rennick K, Ewart B. Benefiting all beneficiaries of social assistance: the 2-year effects and expense of subsidized versus nonsubsidized quality child care and recreation. Natl Acad Pract Forum. 1999;14(2):131–142.
    1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Strategic governance and policy-making: Building policy coherence. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2000.
    1. World Health Organization. The world health report: health in the 21st century: A vision for All. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.
    1. World Health Organization. Primary HealthCare: report of the international conference on primary health care. Alam-Alta: World Health Organization; 1978.
    1. Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Tatelbaum R, Chamberlin R. Improving the life-course development of socially disadvantaged mothers: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Am J Public Health. 1988;14(11):1436–1445. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.78.11.1436.
    1. Silver EJ, Ireys HT, Bauman LJ, Stein REK. Psychological outcomes of a support intervention in mothers of children with ongoing health conditions: the parent-to-parent network. J Community Psychol. 1997;14(3):249–264. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199705)25:3<249::AID-JCOP3>;2-R.
    1. Witt PA, Crompton JL. Recreation programs that work for at risk youth: The challenge of shaping the future. State College, Pa: Venture Publishing, Incorporated; 1996.
    1. Blair C, Ramey CT, Hardin JM. Early intervention for low birthweight, premature infants: participation and intellectual development. Am J Ment Retard. 1995;14(5):542–554.
    1. Olds D, Henderson CR Jr, Cole R, Eckenrode J, Kitzman H, Luckey D, Pettitt L, Sidora K, Morris P, Powers J. Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;14(14):1238–1244. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.14.1238.
    1. Pless IB, Satterwhite B. Chronic illness in childhood: selection, activities and evaluation of Non-professional family counselors. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1972;14(7):403–410. doi: 10.1177/000992287201100709.
    1. Dunst CJ, Trivette CM, Deal AG. Supporting & strengthening families: methods, strategies and practices. Northampton, MA : Brookline Books; 1994.
    1. Drummond J, Kysela GM, McDonald L, Alexander J, Fleming D. Risk and resiliency in two samples of Canadian families. Health Can Soc. 1996;14(1):117–151.
    1. Comer JP. School power: implications of an intervention project. New York: Free Press; 1995.
    1. Marx E, Wooley S, Northrop D. Health Is academic: A guide to coordinated school health programs. Columbia University: Teachers College Press, Teachers College; 1998.
    1. Reynolds AJ, Mavrogenes NA, Bezruczko N, Hagemann M. Cognitive and family-support mediators of preschool effectiveness: a confirmatory analysis. Child Dev. 1996;14(3):1119–1140. doi: 10.2307/1131883.
    1. Offord D, Jones M. In: Childhood psychopathology and developmen. Earls F, Guze SB, Barrett JE, editor. New York, NY: Raven; 1983. Skill development: a community intervention program for the prevention of anti-social behavior; pp. 165–188.
    1. McKay SL, Reid IS, Tremblay MS, Pelletier R. In: Youth in transition: perspectives on research and policy. Galaway B, Hudson J, editor. Toronto, Canada: Thompson Educational Publishing; 1996. The impact of recreation on youth in transition to adulthood: a focus on youth at risk; pp. 234–292.
    1. Martinek TJ, Hellison DR. Fostering resiliency in underserved youth through physical activity. Quest. 1997;14(1):34–49. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1997.10484222.
    1. Offord D, Hanna E, Hoult L. Recreation and the development of children and youth: a discussion paper. Paper. [ ]
    1. Timmons BW, LeBlanc AG, Carson V, Connor Gorber S, Dillman C, Janssen I, Kho ME, Spence JC, Stearns JA, Tremblay MS. Systematic review of physical activity and health in the early years (aged 0–4 years) Appl Physiol, Nutr Metab. 2012;14(4):773–792. doi: 10.1139/h2012-070.
    1. Howie LD, Lukacs SL, Pastor PN, Reuben CA, Mendola P. Participation in activities outside of school hours in relation to problem behavior and social skills in middle childhood. J Sch Health. 2010;14(3):119–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00475.x.
    1. Vogler S, Davidson A, Crane L, Steiner J, Brown JM. Can paraprofessional home visitation enhance early intervention service delivery? J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2002;14:208–216. doi: 10.1097/00004703-200208000-00003.
    1. Ginsburg KR. The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent–child bonds. Pediatrics. 2007;14(1):182. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2697.
    1. Brown SJ. Nursing intervention studies: a descriptive analysis of issues important to clinicians. Res Nurs Health. 2002;14(4):317–327. doi: 10.1002/nur.10039.
    1. Browne G, Byrne C, Roberts J, Gafni A, Majumdar B, Kertyzia J. Convergence - Why Ontario should develop community-based models of integrated service for school-aged children. A discussion paper. Hamilton, Ont: he System-Linked Research Unit on Health and Social Service Utilization, McMaster University; 2001.
    1. Kazdin AE, Kraemer HC, Kessler RC, Kupfer DJ, Offord DR. Contributions of risk-factor research to developmental psychopathology. Clin Psychol Rev. 1997;14(4):375–406. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00012-3.
    1. Kazdin AE. Bridging the enormous gaps of theory with therapy research and practice. J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;14(1):59–66. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3001_7.
    1. Ciliska D, Hayward S, Thomas H, Mitchell A, Dobbins M, Underwood J, Rafael A, Martin E. A systematic overview of the effectiveness of home visiting as a delivery strategy for public health nursing interventions. Can J Public Health. 1996;14(3):193–198.
    1. Families First Edmonton. Families first Edmonton service delivery toolkit. Edmonton: Families First Edmonton; 2010.
    1. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 3. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
    1. Muthén BO, Curran PJ. General longitudinal modeling of individual differences in experimental designs: a latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation. Psychol Methods. 1997;14(4):371–402.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe