Detection of unsafety in families with parental and/or child developmental problems at the start of family support

Background Risk assessment is crucial in preventing child maltreatment as it can identify high-risk cases in need of child protection intervention. Despite this importance, there have been no validated risk assessment instruments available in the Netherlands for assessing the risk of child maltreatment. Therefore, the predictive validity of the California Family Risk Assessment (CFRA) was examined in Dutch families who received family support. In addition, the added value of a number of experimental items was examined. Finally, it was examined whether the predictive value of the instrument could be improved by modifying the scoring procedure. Methods Dutch families who experienced parenting and/or child developmental problems and were referred by the Centres for Youth and Family for family support between July 2009 and March 2011 were included. This led to a sample of 491 families. The predictive validity of the CFRA and the added value of the experimental items were examined by calculating AUC values. A CHAID analysis was performed to examine whether the scoring procedure could be improved. Results About half of the individual CFRA items were not related to future reports of child maltreatment. The predictive validity of the CFRA in predicting future reports of child maltreatment was found to be modest (AUC = .693). The addition of some of the experimental items and the modification of the scoring procedure by including only items that were significantly associated with future maltreatment reports resulted in a ‘high’ predictive validity (AUC = .795). Conclusions This new set of items might be a valuable instrument that also saves time because only variables that uniquely contribute to the prediction of future reports of child maltreatment are included. Furthermore, items that are perceived as difficult to assess by professionals, such as parental mental health problems or parents’ history of abuse/neglect, could be omitted without compromising predictive validity. However, it is important to examine the psychometric properties of this new set of items in a new dataset

Avoidable mortality across Canada from 1975 to 1999

BACKGROUND: The concept of 'avoidable' mortality (AM) has been proposed as a performance measure of health care systems. In this study we examined mortality in five geographic regions of Canada from 1975 to 1999 for previously defined avoidable disease groups that are amenable to medical care and public health. These trends were compared to mortality from other causes. METHODS: National and regional age-standardized mortality rates for ages less than 65 years were estimated for avoidable and other causes of death for consecutive periods (1975–1979, 1980–1985, 1985–1989, 1990–1994, and 1995–1999). The proportion of all-cause mortality attributable to avoidable causes was also determined. RESULTS: From 1975–1979 to 1995–1999, the AM decrease (46.9%) was more pronounced compared to mortality from other causes (24.9%). There were persistent regional AM differences, with consistently lower AM in Ontario and British Columbia compared to the Atlantic, Quebec, and Prairies regions. This trend was not apparent when mortality from other causes was examined. Injuries, ischaemic heart disease, and lung cancer strongly influenced the overall AM trends. CONCLUSION: The regional differences in mortality for ages less than 65 years was attributable to causes of death amenable to medical care and public health, especially from causes responsive to public health

A perspective on SIDS pathogenesis. The hypotheses: plausibility and evidence

Several theories of the underlying mechanisms of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) have been proposed. These theories have born relatively narrow beach-head research programs attracting generous research funding sustained for many years at expense to the public purse. This perspective endeavors to critically examine the evidence and bases of these theories and determine their plausibility; and questions whether or not a safe and reasoned hypothesis lies at their foundation. The Opinion sets specific criteria by asking the following questions: 1. Does the hypothesis take into account the key pathological findings in SIDS? 2. Is the hypothesis congruent with the key epidemiological risk factors? 3. Does it link 1 and 2? Falling short of any one of these answers, by inference, would imply insufficient grounds for a sustainable hypothesis. Some of the hypotheses overlap, for instance, notional respiratory failure may encompass apnea, prone sleep position, and asphyxia which may be seen to be linked to co-sleeping. For the purposes of this paper, each element will be assessed on the above criteria