Enhancing Industry-Based Dissemination of an Occupational Sun Protection Program with Theory-Based Strategies Employing Personal Contact
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Industry-based strategies for dissemination of an evidence-based occupational sun protection program, Go Sun Smart (GSS), were tested. DESIGN: Two dissemination strategies were compared in a randomized trial in 2004-2007. SETTING: The North American ski industry. SUBJECTS: Ski areas in the United States and Canada (n = 69) and their senior managers (n = 469). INTERVENTION: Employers received GSS through a basic dissemination strategy (BDS) from the industry's professional association that included conference presentations and free starter kits. Half of the areas also received the enhanced dissemination strategy (EDS), in which project staff met face-to-face with managers and made ongoing contacts to support program use. MEASURES: Observation of program materials in use and managers' reports on communication about sun protection. ANALYSIS: The effects of two alternative dissemination strategies were compared on program use using PROC MIXED in SAS, adjusted for covariates using one-tailed p values. RESULTS: Ski areas receiving the EDS used more GSS materials (x¯ = 7.36) than those receiving the BDS (x¯ = 5.17; F = 7.82, p < .01). Managers from more areas receiving the EDS reported communicating about sun protection in employee newsletters/flyers (x¯ = .97, p = .04), in guest e-mail messages (x¯ = .75, p = .02), and on ski area Web sites (x¯ = .38, p = .02) than those receiving the BDS (x¯ = .84, .50, .15, respectively). CONCLUSION: Industry professional associations play an important role in disseminating prevention programs; however, active personal communication may be essential to ensure increased implementation fidelity.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it