PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M M Jacewitz

Publications and source records attributed to M M Jacewitz.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1983

Assessment of a program's effectiveness in selecting individuals "at risk" for problems in parenting.

Administered the Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory to 99 parents assessed as "At Risk" of parenting problems by the At Risk Parent-Child Program, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma. The study was designed to determine the number and extent of elevated abuse scores in an "At Risk" group compared to a norm group and to discover whether present "At Risk" parents were more seriously "At Risk" than past clients in the same program. During a 3-year period participants were offered the CAP-Inventory as part of the routine evaluation process. Results indicated the "At Risk" group scored significantly above a norm group, with 58% and 52% of the "At Risk" parents scoring above the 95th and 99th percentiles of the norm group, respectively. Comparison of the present results with data from a previous study in the same program (Milner & Ayoub, 1980) showed that the present "At Risk" group earned a significantly higher mean abuse score and had significantly more individual scores above the 95th and 99th percentiles of the norm group than did previous "At Risk" parents. The data indicated the Program is currently more effective in the selection of parents in need of its services. However, because the clients are in greater need, other findings (Thomasson, Berkovitz, Minor, Cassle, McCord, & Milner, 1981) suggest that the Program may now find itself having a more difficult time demonstrating program effectiveness because participants may be more resistant to treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed1982

Families at risk of poor parenting: a model for service delivery, assessment, and intervention.

The At Risk Parent Child Program is a multidisciplinary network agency designed for the secondary prevention of poor parenting and the extremes of child abuse and neglect. This model system of service delivery emphasizes (1) the coordination of existing community resources to access a target population of families at risk of parenting problems, (2) the provision of multiple special services in a neutral location (ambulatory pediatric clinic), and (3) the importance of intensive individual contact with a clinical professional who serves as primary therapist, social advocate and service coordinator for client families. Identification and assessment of families is best done during prenatal and perinatal periods. Both formal and informal procedures for screening for risk factors are described, and a simple set of at risk criteria for use by hospital nursing staff is provided. Preventive intervention strategies include special medical, psychological, social and developmental services, offered in an inpatient; outpatient, or in-home setting. Matching family needs to modality and setting of treatment is a major program concern. All direct services to at risk families are supplied by professionals employed within existing local agencies (hospital, public health department, state guidance center, and medical school pediatric clinic). Multiple agency involvement allows a broad-based screening capacity which allows thousands of families routine access to program services. The administrative center of the network stands as an independent, community-funded core which coordinates and monitors direct clinical services, and provides local political advocacy for families at risk of parenting problems.

Child↗
PubMed1982

Families at risk of poor parenting: a descriptive study of sixty at risk families in a model prevention program.

Sixty families assessed to be at risk of poor parenting were the subject of this study. These families were participants in a model multidisciplinary program designed for the secondary prevention of poor parenting and the extremes of child abuse and neglect. The model program consists of special medical, psychological, social and developmental services to families on an inpatient, outpatient, and in-home basis. Demographic information on these 60 families was tabulated. Each family was given a monthly rating on a simple measure of family function. Ratings over time were observed, and families were characterized in terms of a family rating vector (up, up-plateau, plateau, fluctuating, and down). Families were also described in terms of the constellation of problems brought to the therapy situation. Problem lists for each family were subjected to factor analysis. Five factor constructs which made clinical sense emerged from the analysis. Each factor could be labeled as a "family type." These types were: (I) Abusive Family, (II) Neglectful or Antisocial Family. (III) Family with an Emotionally Unstable Parent, (IV) Family with Cultural or Intellectual Limitation, and (V) Family with Child-Rearing Difficulties. Approximately 20% of these families did not fit the typology. Families were then divided into two groups--those who were relatively long-term, ongoing recipients of services, and those who left the program in the observation interval. Families were categorized according to family function rating vector and "family type." It was noted among long-term families, measured improvement in family function was most evident in families with transient situational crisis (who did not fit the typology) and those with intellectual and cultural deficits (Type IV). Among the families who dropped from the program, 15% were no longer at risk. Sixty-three percent of the remaining families were not improving. These techniques may be useful in determining which at risk families are more successful candidates for prevention efforts.

Adolescent↗