<i>Supervising for Home Safety</i>Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) Testing Community-Based Group Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The individually delivered Supervising for Home Safety (SHS) program improves caregivers' injury-related beliefs and supervision practices. The current randomized controlled trial used a group delivery in a community setting and assessed program impact, feasibility, and acceptance. Methods: Caregivers of 2-5-year-olds were randomized to receive either the SHS or an attention-matched control program. Results: In the SHS group only, there were increases from baseline to postintervention in the following: beliefs about children's vulnerability to injury, caregiver preventability of injuries, and self-efficacy to do so; readiness for change in supervision; and watchful supervision. Face-to-face recruitment by staff at community organizations proved most successful. Caregivers' satisfaction ratings were high, as was caregiver engagement (95% completed at least seven of the nine sessions). Conclusion: The SHS program can be delivered to groups of caregivers in community settings, is positively received by caregivers, and produces desirable changes that can be expected to improve caregivers' home safety 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 | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".