Once bitten, twice shy? Medically-attended injuries can sensitise parents to children’s risk of injuries on playgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare risk perceptions of parents whose child sustained a medically attended playground injury (cases) with those of parents whose child had not (controls) to address two questions. Does having a child experience a medically attended injury: (1) sensitise parents to children's injury vulnerability and severity; (2) influence parents' appraisal of the injury mechanism (child's behaviour), attributions for injuries or beliefs about strategies for prevention? METHOD: Each case-control parent dyad was assigned to one of two conditions: (1) being presented with 10 common injury-risk playground behaviours specific to the equipment on which their child had been hurt, and asked to appraise injury vulnerability and severity; or (2) being presented with scenarios about playground injuries that varied in severity but were all based on the same child behaviour, and asked questions about this behaviour, attributions for injury and strategies for prevention. RESULTS: The results support the occurrence of a sensitisation process. Compared with control parents, case parents showed higher ratings of injury severity and children's vulnerability to injury, made fewer attributions for injuries to bad luck, and endorsed a greater diversity of prevention strategies, including parent (closer supervision), child (teaching rules about safe play on playgrounds) and environmental (modifications to playgrounds). CONCLUSIONS: A child's medically attended injury can create a "teachable moment" for the parent. Linking injury-prevention programming to this teachable moment may increase the likelihood of evoking changes in parental supervisory behaviour and their setting of rules limiting their child's risk behaviours to reduce the occurrence of childhood injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".