18 Exploring infants injury-risk behaviours at various stages of motor development: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Unintentional injury represents the leading cause of death among young children in Canada. Peaks in infant injury rates have been found to directly coincide with newly acquired developmental motor milestones, but little is known about these patterns. The current study examines: the rate and nature of injury-risk behaviours during infancy; patterns in parent supervision during times when infants engage in injury-risk behaviours; and how injury-risk behaviours and parental supervision coincide with minor injuries sustained in infancy. Methods Using a multi-method approach (diary forms, interviews), parents of typically-developing infants were asked to document the rate and nature of infants’ engagement in injury-risk behaviours, and injuries sustained at sitting, crawling, and walking stages. Parental supervision patterns were also examined. Results The majority (<90%) of infants engaged in injury-risk behaviours and sustained minor in-home injuries, with the crawling stage of motor development posing the greatest injury-risk to infants. Not surprisingly, infants who engaged in more injury-risk behaviours sustained more injuries. Examining supervision patterns over developmental stages revealed that caregivers failed to increase supervision levels during crawling, even though infants were moving further and faster (i.e., able to access more hazards) in comparison to when sitting. Conclusion Parents’ current safety practices are insufficient for managing injury threats to infants, especially as they become more mobile. Educating parents about the type of risk behaviours that lead to injury and how these change with motor development milestones can provide a foundation for them to understand the steps to be taken to prevent injuries as infants develop. Contribution This study is the first to examine injury as a function of motor milestone, rather than age. It provides unique insight into the nature of behaviours that result in injury and how these change with motor development. This can inform our identification of developmentally-focused prevention strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".