Evaluating the acceptability and feasibility of the <i>I Promise Program</i>: a driving program for families with young new drivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the I Promise Program (IPP), a driving program developed for families with young new drivers (YNDs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: The IPP consists of a contract between parents and YNDs and a rear window decal (sticker). Program acceptability was assessed through four focus groups with 40 young new drivers (YND), two with 19 parents of YNDs, and two with 15 community members. To determine whether the program's design, materials, and procedures were working as planned, 51 families participated in a six month pilot project. Telephone and in-person interviews were conducted at months 1 and 6, respectively. RESULTS: Participants had problems with the acceptability of the program's underlying message; content, format, and language of the materials; program cost; and proposed participant incentives. Thirty eight (75%) families completed the six month pilot. Most YNDs (75%) and parents (85%) identified the contract as a useful communication tool. Despite positive initial reactions, 50% of YNDs did not recall the content of the contract after six months. Sixty eight percent of families had problems with the decal (for example, did not stay affixed, colors faded) and only 17% of YNDs reported a lasting impact on their driving. Only 20% of families chose to continue in the program after the pilot. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the importance of formative and process evaluation in the development of a new prevention strategy to assess a strategy's acceptability and feasibility. In response to participants' feedback, revisions made to the program's materials and delivery model included making its two key components-the contract and decal-available online, independent of each other, and free of charge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".