Recall and understanding of a communication campaign designed to promote positive parenting and prevent child maltreatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based parenting support programs are among effective strategies for preventing child maltreatment. The launch of mass media campaigns accompanying the implementation of such programs has been recommended to optimize reach and parent enrollment. This paper focuses on a communication campaign developed to support the implementation of the Triple P - Positive Parenting Program in two French-Canadian communities. Proximal outcomes (recall and understanding) were assessed through a randomized telephone survey conducted between January and April 2017 among 1029 mothers of children aged 6 months to 8 years. Distribution and correlates of the respondents' recall and understanding of the campaign were examined. Results show that 32.1% of respondents recalled having seen the campaign material. Among these, a large majority reported having understood the intended messages (parenting difficulties are normal, seeking help is the right thing to do, and/or effective support is available). However, some respondents also retained unintended messages blaming parents and/or children, and almost half the sample retained mixed messages (intended and unintended). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that community of residence, annual household income, and psychological aggression towards the child at home were three significant correlates of campaign recall + intended messages understood. None of the examined factors were associated with recall + mixed messages understood. Findings suggest a neighborhood effect on the proximal outcomes of the campaign, and a slightly higher reach and understanding among better-off families as well as families struggling with psychologically violent parenting practices. These results are discussed in light of the outcomes of similar campaigns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".