Interventions to Prevent Unintentional Injuries Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, every day, ∼2,300 children and adolescents succumb to unintentional injuries sustained from motor vehicle collisions, drowning, poisoning, falls, burns, and violence. The rate of deaths due to motor vehicle injuries in adolescents is 10.2 per 100,000 adolescents. We systematically reviewed published evidence to identify interventions to prevent unintentional injuries among adolescents aged 11-19 years. We defined unintentional injuries as a subset of injuries for which there was no evidence of predetermined intent, and the definition included motor vehicle injuries, suffocation, drowning, poisoning, burns, falls, and sports and recreation. Thirty-five studies met study eligibility criteria. The included studies focused on interventions to prevent motor vehicle injuries and sports-related injuries. Results suggest that possession of a graduated driver license (GDL) significantly reduced road accidents by 19% (relative risk [RR]: .81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .75-.88; n = 5). There was no impact of GDL programs on incidence of injuries (RR: .78; 95% CI: .57-1.06; n = 2), helmet use (RR: 1.0; 95% CI: .98-1.02; n = 3), and seat belt use (RR: .99; 95% CI: .97-1.0; n = 3). Sports-related injury prevention interventions led to reductions in the incidence of injuries (RR: .66; 95% CI: .53-.82; n = 15), incidence of injury per hour of exposure (RR: .63; 95% CI: .47-.86; n = 5), and injuries per number of exposures (RR: .79; 95% CI: .70-.88; n = 4). Subgroup analysis according to the type of interventions suggests that training ± education and the use of safety equipment had significant impacts on reducing the incidence of injuries. We did not find any study focusing on interventions to prevent suffocation, drowning, poisoning, burns, and falls in the adolescent age group. The existing evidence is mostly from high-income countries, limiting the generalizability of these findings for low- and middle-income countries. Studies evaluating these interventions need to be replicated in a low- and middle-income country-context to evaluate effectiveness with standardized outcome measures.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".