MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160141634 · doi:10.2196/23242

Using Social Media for the Prevention of Pediatric Burn Injuries: Pilot Design and Usability Study

2021· article· en· W3160141634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nikita Batra, Cindy D Colson, Emily C. Alberto, Randall S. Burd

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChildren's National Hospital
KeywordsSocial mediaMedicineHeadlineUsabilityInjury preventionMedical emergencyOccupational safety and healthBurn injuryPoison controlAdvertisingSurgeryComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most pediatric burn injuries are preventable. Social media is an effective method for delivering large-scale messaging and may be useful for injury prevention in this domain. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the feasibility of creating a social media campaign for pediatric burn injury prevention. METHODS: Ad spots containing a headline, short introduction, and video were created and posted on Facebook and Instagram over 4 months. Ad spots were targeted to parents and caregivers of children in our region with the highest number of burn injuries. We assessed the impact of each ad set using ThruPlays, reach, and video plays. RESULTS: We created 55 ad spots, with an average length of 24.1 (range 10-44) seconds. We reached 26,496 people during the campaign. The total ThruPlays of the 55 ad spots were 14,460 at US $0.19 per ThruPlay. Ad spots related to home safety had a significantly higher daily ThruPlay rate than those related to fire safety (6.5 vs 0.5 per day; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Social media is a feasible modality for delivering public health messages focused on preventing pediatric burn injuries. Engagement with these ads is influenced by ad presentation and the focus of the underlying injury prevention message.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.516
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.072 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207