<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 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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".