Striking a Balance Between Risk and Protection: Fathers' Attitudes and Practices Toward Child Injury Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To gain understanding of fathers' attitudes, decisions, and practices regarding the level of risk they are willing to expose their children to and the level of protection they feel is necessary. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of 32 fathers of children aged 2 to 7 years in British Columbia. Questions addressed fathers' roles and typical activities with their children, child safety concerns and practices. Grounded theory methods guided data analysis. RESULTS: Fathers believed a central aspect of their role involved actively exploring the world with their children through physical and play-based activities. Fathers made decisions about the appropriateness of activities, striking a balance between protecting their child and exposing them to risk and new experiences. Most fathers placed high value on providing their children with risk-taking opportunities and discussed many positive aspects of risk and experiencing minor injuries. The potential for serious injury was considered in weighing decisions regarding risk engagement. A theoretical model outlining 4 decision-making characteristics for striking a balance is proposed. CONCLUSION: Injury prevention interventions can benefit from understanding the meanings and priorities fathers hold about their children's safety, creating programs that resonate with fathers to increase relevance. To maximize success, messaging should consider fathers' decision-making characteristics, incorporate the importance of healthy risk taking for child development, and teach fathers how to minimize likelihood of injury in the context of being active and taking risks with their child.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".