Parent and Caregiver Compliance with Poison Center Advice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the compliance of parents and caregivers whose children (under 6 years of age) accidentally ingested antihistamines, decongestants, or both. METHODS: We used a prospective-descriptive study design and developed a convenience sample from eligible calls retrieved from the records from January 19, 1999 to February 28, 1999. Poison control specialists categorized the children into two groups: toxic and needing treatment in a hospital or nontoxic and not needing treatment at a hospital. Compliance with Poison Control Center advice was measured by follow-up telephone calls made by a research assistant within 7 days of the initial call. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven calls were retrieved and followed. One hundred and seven (72.8%) callers had been advised that no treatment was needed. One hundred (93.4%) of these 107 followed Poison Control Centre advice. Forty (27.2%) of the 147 callers were advised to take their child to an emergency department. Thirty-nine (97.5%) of these 40 complied with the advice. There was no statistically significant difference in compliance rates between the two groups (chi2 = 0.306, df = 1, p = 0.58). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In this group of callers, compliance was high. Reasons for noncompliance included caregiver anxiety, specifically the need for a second opinion. Future studies are needed to determine the level of compliance more definitively. Studies should include subjects from other age groups, other exposures, and other types of callers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".