Social marketing to reduce preventable injuries in BC, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To determine the efficacy of a social marketing campaign to raise awareness, change attitudes and behaviours to reduce the number and severity of injuries among citizens aged 25–54 in British Columbia, Canada. Methods A two-year, two-phase formative evaluation comprised focus groups and on-line survey. Phase I consisted eight focus groups of 6–8 participants aged 25–54 throughout BC. The goal was to understand perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and behaviours, and to understand potentially effective injury prevention messages and channels. Phase II comprised on-line survey of 300 citizens 24–54 in May, 2009. Demographic, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour variables around injuries served as pre-campaign baseline measures. A multi-year, multi-faceted campaign, utilising TV, radio, print, signage, guerrilla events and social media launched in June, 2009. Data from random samples (n = 700) were gathered at 4-month intervals and used to monitor changes in awareness, attitudes, behaviours, together with changes in injury deaths and hospitalizations. Results Approximately 50% of BC population (2 million) were reached weekly, and over 100 million media impressions were generated during the 6-month launch period. 50,000 visited http://www.preventable.ca . Campaign recall increased 45%; TV ads were considered informative, relevant, credible and generated self-reflection with no advertising fatigue. Positive shifts (5–10%; p < 0.05) in attitudes and behaviours; significant differences persisted over 5-years in awareness, attitudes and behaviours between those who saw the campaign vs those who did not. Reduction in injury deaths was associated with the campaign. Conclusions A social marketing campaign resulted in significant changes in awareness, attitudes and behaviours, which was associated with decreased injury mortality. Key messages Campaign recall increased 45%; TV ads were considered informative, relevant, credible and generated self-reflection with no advertising fatigue A social marketing campaign resulted in significant changes in awareness, attitudes and behaviours, which was associated with decreased injury mortality
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".