MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

18 Exploring infants injury-risk behaviours at various stages of motor development: a longitudinal study

2017· article· en· W2758818137 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsay Bryant, Amanda Cox, Barbara A. Morrongiello

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrawlingSittingInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsMotor skillDevelopmental stageOccupational safety and healthPsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPhysical therapyPediatricsMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Purpose</h3> 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. <h3>Methods</h3> 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. <h3>Results</h3> The majority (&lt;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. <h3>Conclusion</h3> 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. <h3>Contribution</h3> 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.190
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOral PresentationsSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207