A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of the Supervising for Home Safety program on parent appraisals of injury risk and need to actively supervise.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A video to promote parents' appreciation of young children's risk of injury and need for active supervision was recently developed (Morrongiello, Zdzieborski, Sandomierski, & Lasenby-Lessard, 2009). Integrating this video with tailored activities resulted in the Supervising for Home Safety program. The current randomized, controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of this program for increasing parental appraisals of child-injury risk and the need to actively supervise 2- through 5-year-old children. METHOD: Parents were recruited throughout the community and randomly assigned to either intervention (content focused on child-injury risks and supervision needs) or control (content focused on child nutrition and exercise) groups, with these balanced for child sex and age. Pre- and postintervention measures of parental appraisals of child-injury risk (vulnerability for injury, potential injury severity, preventability of injury) and supervision (value of active supervision, self-efficacy for actively supervising) were taken. RESULTS: Following exposure to the intervention, appraisals of children's injury risk and parents' need to actively supervise significantly increased in the intervention group but not the control group, and all effects, except change in vulnerability appraisal, persisted for 12 months after exposure to the intervention program. Additional analyses were conducted to explore barriers that parents identified to closely supervising and solutions they suggested to address barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The Supervising for Home Safety program produced the desired effects on parental appraisals. It holds promise as a program that may improve parents' supervision practices.
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 | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".