MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151371342 · doi:10.1542/peds.2003-1038-l

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Prevent Childhood Farm Injuries

2004· review· en· W2151371342 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Hartling, Robert J. Brison, Ellen Crumley, Terry P. Klassen, William Pickett

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChecklistPsychological interventionObservational studyMEDLINEFamily medicinePopulationIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialEnvironmental healthNursingSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to systematically review the global body of evidence surrounding the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of acute pediatric agricultural injuries. A specific focus was the effectiveness of the North American Guidelines for Children's Agricultural Tasks. METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened studies and applied inclusion criteria on the basis of searches of 17 bibliographic databases (eg, Medline and Embase). We also screened reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the area. Studies were included if they represented primary research, a comparison group was used, the study population included children or the intervention was directly applicable to children, and objective outcomes were reported. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodologic quality of included studies with the Downs and Black checklist. A qualitative analysis was performed because of extensive heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: We included 23 controlled studies, ie, 4 randomized, controlled trials, 5 controlled trials, and 14 quasiexperimental or observational studies. Only 8 of the relevant studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. School-based programs appeared to be effective at increasing short-term knowledge acquisition; outcomes were enhanced with active, hands-on participation, as opposed to passive activities. Safety day camps showed positive results for knowledge acquisition. Tractor training programs and community- and farm-based interventions showed mixed results. Studies examining the North American Guidelines for Children's Agricultural Tasks suggested that uptake improves if dissemination is accompanied by a farm visit from a safety specialist or if information about child development principles is provided in conjunction with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of randomized, controlled trials and community-based trials in this area. Studies primarily examined intermediate outcomes, such as knowledge acquisition; few studies evaluated changes in injury rates. The interventions targeted at children and youths that were evaluated focused on educational interventions. There is both the need and potential for the development and evaluation of injury control interventions for children, particularly programs addressing lethal injuries to young/preschool-aged children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.009
Bibliometrics0.0190.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207