S.A.F.E.R. Near Water: An Intervention Targeting Parent Beliefs About Children’s Water Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate the S.A.F.E.R. Near Water program, an evidence-based and theory-driven intervention targeting parent beliefs relevant to keeping children safe around water. METHODS: A nonrandomized trial was conducted. Parents with children aged two through five years who were enrolled in lessons either at a public or private swim organization in Ontario, Canada were recruited and nonrandomly assigned to either an Intervention (N = 92) or Control (N = 150) condition. All parents completed the same questionnaire measures two times over the course of their child's swim lesson session period, once at the beginning (preintervention) and again at the end (postintervention; approximately 9-15 weeks later). Questionnaires assessed parents' perceptions related to supervision, child drowning risk, water safety, and optimism bias. Parents in the Intervention condition participated in S.A.F.E.R. Near Water, an educational water safety program comprising in-person seminars, informational handouts, and posters. RESULTS: The S.A.F.E.R. Near Water program was associated with increased knowledge in targeted areas and effectively communicated most of the intended messages. A series of primary regression analyses revealed that parents receiving S.A.F.E.R. Near Water demonstrated improvements in: beliefs about the value of supervision; judgments about children's swim skills and drowning risk; and perceptions related to swim lessons and children's supervision needs (sr2 range: 0.22-0.38). CONCLUSION: These findings provide support for the feasibility and usefulness of a multifaceted, parent-focused, educational program delivered alongside children's swim programming to promote closer adult supervision of children around water.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".