From focus groups to production of a distracted driving video
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The Impact program is an adolescent, injury prevention program with both school- and hospital-based components aimed at decreasing high-risk behaviors and preventing injury. The objective of this study was to obtain student input on the school-based component of Impact, as part of the program evaluation and redesign process, to ensure that the program content and format were optimal and relevant, addressing injury-related issues important for youth in our region. METHODS: Secondary schools were selected in various geographic regions with students varying in language, religion, and socioeconomic status. A mixed-methods questionnaire was developed and pretested on program content, format, relevance, quality, and effectiveness. Attitude and opinion questions on issues facing teens today were ranked on a 7-point Likert scale. Open-ended, qualitative questions were included in the focus groups, with responses themed. RESULTS: There were 167 respondents in the nine geographically, socioeconomically, and culturally diverse focus groups with a mean age of 16 years, 52% were male, and 69% were in Grade 11. Ninety-three percent of respondents rated the content of Impact as comprehensive (median, 6 of 7, with 7 being very comprehensive), and 29% rated the format a 5 of 7. Impact was rated relevant (89%), addressing issues for teens (median, 6 of 7). Issues suggested to highlight included texting and driving, drugs, partying, self-harm, and abusive relationships. Texting while driving was perceived as a significantly more common (81%) injury issue for adolescents compared with other driving risk factors (p < 0.001), with one student commenting, "If you don't (text and drive), you either don't have a phone or don't have a driver's license." CONCLUSION: Injury prevention programs must be continually evaluated to ensure they are relevant, addressing issues important for youth, and presented in a format that resonates with the audience. Student focus groups identified motor vehicle collisions and texting as important issues as well as a desire for teens to hear personal stories with a visual element. This provided the information needed to develop the next logical direction for our program, the production of a distracted driving video ("Distracted Driving: Josh's Story," http://youtu.be/BFPke9gBybc) to be incorporated into school presentations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic/prognostic study, level III.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».