Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Premature graduation from a booster seat to an adult seat belt places the child at increased risk of injury in the event of a collision, a practice that remains an important public health issue in Canada. Obtaining baseline information that describes the prevalence, nature and determinants of booster seat misuse, as well as the information utilization patterns of parents of booster eligible children is a required first step towards understanding this issue within the Alberta context. Between May 1st and August 31st, 2008 at 67 randomly selected childcare centers in both urban and rural locations, drivers exiting with their children were approached and asked to participate in a parking lot interview and simultaneous in-vehicle restraint inspection. Overall, 31.8% of booster eligible children were improperly restrained. Additionally, 11.4% of booster eligible children were improperly restrained even though they were in the correct seat. While the prevalence of improper seat choice was low as children first became eligible for booster seats (~15%), rates of premature graduation increased to ~50% and higher as the child neared the adult seatbelt transition point boundary of 80lbs. Children at low risk of being seated in the wrong seat included those riding with drivers that were able to successfully recall any child restraint transition point (OR: 0.27; 95%CI: 0.14-0.50; p<0.0001), while children at high risk of being seated in wrong seat included those riding in vehicles with three children (OR: 2.67; 95%CI: 1.2-6.06; p=0.020). Nearly half of all parents of booster eligible children had used a printed resource or a non-physician health professional to obtain information on child restraints, with the non-physician health professional being the most preferred source overall in the survey. By sex, males both utilized and preferred the use of non-health professionals to obtain information while females both utilized and preferred the use of non-physician health professionals. The lowest rates of misuse were seen among drivers who had utilized a physician as an information source, who were also among the most underutilized sources in the survey. Drivers able to use their preferred information source exhibited lower rates of booster seat misuse, regardless of which source was used. Efforts must be made to increase awareness of booster seat transition points, of which, enactment of mandatory booster legislation is crucial. Additionally, avenues for parents to consult directly with non-physician health professionals must remain abundant and accessible as this was the most common pathway for obtaining information. Other less common sources must not however, be overlooked, as nearly all sources exhibited the potential to be correlated with proper use as long as it was also preferred by the parent.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».