Home delivery of an injury prevention kit for children in four French cities: a controlled randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Home delivery of counselling and safety devices to prevent child injuries could help parents to adopt safe behaviour. The aim of this study was to test a safety kit designed and used in Quebec (Canada). DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: One hundred families from four towns in the Paris suburbs were visited at home by nurses or doctors when their child reached 6-9 months. Selection criteria were: primipara, medical problem, psychological, and/or socioeconomic difficulties. INTERVENTIONS: During the first visit, 50 families (group 1) received counselling and a kit including preventive devices and pamphlets about indoor injuries and ways to avoid them. The other 50 families (group 2) received counselling but not the kit. A second home visit was made 6-8 weeks later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of safety improvements was calculated 6-8 weeks after a first home visit. Perceived usefulness of the kit was collected from families and from interviewers. RESULTS: Between the first and the second visits, safety improvement was significantly higher in the group with the kit. This was mainly related to the risk of fall (p<0.02), fire and burns (p<0.001), poisoning (p<0.01), and suffocation (p<0.001). For improvement related to devices provided in the kit, the difference between the groups was significant: 64.4% improvement in group 1 versus 41.2% in group 2 (p<0.01). The relative risk (RR) of safety improvement between groups was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 1.80). Even for improvements not related to the kit the difference remained significant: 31.2% in group 1 versus 20.2% in group 2 (p<0.05); RR = 1.54 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.93). CONCLUSION: Routine home visits by social services offer a good opportunity to tackle child injury prevention. Free delivery of prevention kits and counselling allow families to modify their behaviour and homes so as to reduce risks.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".