The quantity and quality of evidence is inconsistent across the indicators. For some very well researched areas such as literacy and re-notification, the task for the reviewers was to sift through a vast number of potentially useful interventions to identify those most likely to be suitable in the Victorian context. In other areas it was more difficult to find strategies supported by evaluation evidence, and it was necessary to recommend interventions built on evidence-based principles that appear to be producing promising results.
This particularly applies to areas such as increasing participation in kindergarten and absenteeism. Where the evidence is limited, this is clearly indicated in the literature review and efforts have been made to ensure that the recommended strategies, although not ‘gold standard’, have other qualities likely to make them useful for Best Start, such as good documentation and cultural appropriateness. Indeed, because of the nature of evaluation methods, some of the most innovative strategies are not supported by evidence at level one or level two but may nevertheless be appropriate for Best Start. These issues are discussed further in the companion volume, the technical report.
Catalogue entries for each indicator are preceded by a literature review, which provides essential background information to guide the selection and implementation of the strategies. It is strongly recommended that users of the catalogue read the literature reviews.
The format of the reviews is as follows:
The evaluation framework included in the catalogue is based on the following criteria for the strength of supporting evidence:
These categories were based on several classification systems, most notably the one used by the California Evidence- Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org, downloaded 7/9/06). The basis for this classification system is described in the companion volume, the technical report. Where interventions could potentially fall into two different categories (such as a rigorous but non-independent study), they were assigned to the highest relevant level of evidence.
In addition, the framework provides information on the following indicators of quality:
Cost-effectiveness was originally included in the framework but was later removed because this type of information was available for very few of the recommended strategies.
As the aim was to produce a catalogue of evidence-based strategies, the literature reviews and catalogue entries necessarily focused on interventions that had been rigorously evaluated. In some cases, where evidence was limited, it was necessary to include interventions for which there is relatively little evidence of effectiveness. The reasons for including these interventions are clearly indicated in the relevant sections of the report and catalogue. The focus on evidence means that some established practices that have not yet been evaluated were not able to be included in the catalogue. We would strongly encourage those who have developed early intervention programs for the Victorian context to consider evaluating them using robust methods in order that they may be included in future editions of the catalogue.
For each of the indicators, some evidence-based interventions suitable for implementation in the Victorian context have been identified and described.
The catalogue is not intended as a self-contained manual for implementation of the strategies. Rather, it provides evidence that is suitable, relevant and achievable within local resources and constraints. Contact details are provided so that sites can seek further information, including manuals and other documentation and advice on implementation. The catalogue includes the following elements:
For more information on the development of the catalogue, including the search strategies and evidence evaluation framework, consult the companion document, the technical report. For more information about a recommended strategy, contact the person named on the catalogue entry (where possible, this is someone involved in the implementation rather than the evaluation), consult the website, or obtain and read the original sources, such as journal articles and reports (a full reference list is provided at the end of the literature review for each indicator). For more information about the Best Start program, see Best Start.