A methodological template for the design and evaluation of evidence-based injury prevention fact sheets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, public health agencies often employ fact sheets or brochures as means of communicating injury prevention messaging to target groups; these are used because they are cost-effective and can reach large segments of the population. Unfortunately, the design of these instruments rarely reflects an evidence-based process, lacks theoretical grounding, and communication effectiveness is rarely assessed. In collaboration with Safe Kids Canada, we devised a methodological template for the development and evaluation of fact sheets targeting parental safety behaviours. This project involved the development of fact sheets targeting parents of infants at two ages (0–6, 6–12 months). The process employed a rigorous program evaluation framework, including a logic model, grounded in social cognitive theories and existing evidence that resulted in a focus on injury-prevention attitudes, self efficacy, and beliefs about vulnerability and severity of infant injury. Focus group testing with parents allowed us to compare the impact of alternative wording and images on cognitions, emotional reactions and parents injury-prevention beliefs and attitudes. Evidence drawn from these focus groups guided the final development of the fact sheets. A report was produced detailing evidence and recommendations as well as the process of developing and evaluating fact sheets, providing a template for future instrument development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".