Cited by 126Child and Adolescent HealthMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareInfant Development and Preterm Care

Medical-Legal Strategies to Improve Infant Health Care: A Randomized Trial

Open access
Sege, Robert, Preer, Genevieve, Morton, Samantha J., Cabral, Howard, Morakinyo, Oluwatomisin, Lee, Vonne, Abreu, Catarina, De Vos, Edward +1 more·2015·Pediatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Changes in health care delivery create opportunities to improve systems to better meet the needs of low-income families while achieving quality benchmarks. METHODS: Families of healthy newborns receiving primary care at a single large urban safety-net hospital participated. Intervention families were randomly assigned a family specialist who provided support until the 6-month routine health care visit. The Developmental Understanding and Legal Collaboration for Everyone (DULCE) intervention is based on the Strengthening Families approach and incorporated components of the Healthy Steps and Medical-Legal Partnership models. Medical record reviews determined use of preventive and emergency care. Surveys conducted at baseline, postintervention (6 months), and follow-up (12 months) were used to determine hardship and attainment of concrete supports. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty families participated in the study. At baseline, 73% of families reported economic hardships. Intervention parents had an average of 14 contacts with the family specialist, and 5 hours of total contact time. Intervention infants were more likely to have completed their 6-month immunization schedule by age 7 months (77% vs 63%, P < .005) and by 8 months (88% vs 77%, P < .01). Intervention infants were more likely to have 5 or more routine preventive care visits by age 1 year (78% vs 67%, P < .01) and were less likely to have visited the emergency department by age 6 months (37% vs 49.7%, P < .03). The DULCE intervention accelerated access to concrete resources (P = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Assignment to the Project DULCE intervention led to improvements in preventive health care delivery and utilization and accelerated access to concrete supports among low-income families.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2014-2955

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A separate RCT showed no difference in food resource interest or use between control group participants (as needed social work referrals) and intervention group participants (additional navigation support with referrals, including to food resources) (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.43).

    “A separate RCT showed no difference in food resource interest or use between control group participants (patients who received as needed social work referrals) compared with intervention group participants (patients who received additional navigation support with referrals, including to food resources) (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.43). 21”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sege, R., Preer, G., Morton, S. J., Cabral, H., Morakinyo, O., Lee, V., Abreu, C., De Vos, E., & Kaplan-Sanoff, M.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Medical-Legal Partnership | Boston, Boston, Massachusetts; and
  • William James College (formerly the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology), Newton, Massachusetts
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
136
Issue
1
Pages
97-106
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W1942593987
Cited by
126
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
FWCI
10.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (90CA1763)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
Keywords
medical-legal partnerships, infant health care, low-income households, preventive medicine, immunization, emergency department visits, economic hardship, concrete support, safety-net hospitals, primary care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Health Services, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Health Promotion, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Infant, Infant Care, Infant Welfare, Infant, Newborn, Male, Parents, Poverty, Primary Health Care, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review