Home safe home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The London Health Sciences Centre Home Safety Program (HSP) provides safety devices, education, a safety video, and home safety checklist to all first-time parents for the reduction of childhood home injuries. The objective of this study was to evaluate the HSP for the prevention of home injuries in children up to 2 years of age. METHODS: A program evaluation was performed with follow-up survey, along with an interrupted time series analysis of emergency department (ED) visits for home injuries 5 years before (2007-2013) and 2 years after (2013-2015) implementation. Spatial analysis of ED visits was undertaken to assess differences in home injury rates by dissemination areas controlling differences in socioeconomic status (i.e., income, education, and lone-parent status) at the neighborhood level. RESULTS: A total of 3,458 first-time parents participated in the HSP (a 74% compliance rate). Of these, 20% (n = 696) of parents responded to our questionnaire, with 94% reporting the program to be useful (median, 6; interquartile range, 2 on a 7-point Likert scale) and 81% learning new strategies for preventing home injuries. The median age of the respondent's babies were 12 months (interquartile range, 1). The home safety check list was used by 87% of respondents to identify hazards in their home, with 95% taking action to minimize the risk. The time series analysis demonstrated a significant decline in ED visits for home injuries in toddlers younger than2 years of age after HSP implementation. The declines in ED visits for home injuries remained significant over and above each socioeconomic status covariate. CONCLUSION: Removing hazards, supervision, and installing safety devices are key facilitators in the reduction of home injuries. Parents found the HSP useful to identify hazards, learn new strategies, build confidence, and provide safety products. Initial finding suggests that the program is effective in reducing home injuries in children up to 2 years of age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level V.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".