Fathers' child injury prevention attitudes and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Fathers have a major impact on various aspects of child health and development yet little is known about their roles in preventing injuries the most significant risk to their childrens health. While parents play a large role in mitigating childhood injury risks, particularly for younger children, the role of each parent differs substantially and requires investigation. Purpose Using a qualitative approach to develop to enhance our understanding of fathers safety-related attitudes and practices. Method Interviews were conducted with fathers of children aged 2–7 years in British Columbia, Canada. Questions addressed fathers roles and typical activities with their children, concerns regarding child safety, safety practices, and access of safety-related resources. Grounded theory methods guided data analysis. Results A diverse sample of 32 fathers was interviewed. Central themes expressed by fathers included: exposure to risk plays an important role in childrens lives; accidents are part of life; not all injuries can be prevented; preventing serious injuries is important; injuries can represent learning experiences. Fathers focused on outdoor risk, rather than home-based risks and used supervision as an important strategy for injury prevention. Conclusion Fathers attitudes and practices are important to consider in designing prevention programs. Building on perceptions that promote injury prevention (eg, use of supervision), and considering perceptions that challenge the perceived need for prevention in programming (eg, acceptance of injuries and risk) can help ensure the relevance and success of messages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".