MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296498678 · doi:10.1093/pch/21.supp5.e57

Awareness of Sentinel Injuries Among Canadian Paediatricians: A Cpsp One-Time Survey

2016· article· en· W4296498678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
RED F. BARRETT, L Hanes, A Ornstein

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInjury preventionLogistic regressionPoison controlMedical emergencyChild abuseSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthPhysical abusePediatricsEmergency medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: A sentinel injury is a visible or detectable minor injury in a pre-cruising infant that is poorly explained and therefore suspicious for physical abuse. Examples include bruises and intra-oral bleeding, which may be “warning injuries” for possible abuse. Timely recognition and management of a sentinel injury can potentially alter a pattern of escalating child abuse, but studies have demonstrated that in up to a third of cases, physicians miss early signs of abuse. OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to assess paediatrician awareness of sentinel injuries in pre-cruising children as precursors to more serious physical abuse. DESIGN/METHODS: A Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) one-time survey of Canadian paediatricians was conducted in March of 2015 to evaluate awareness of sentinel injuries and their significance. Respondents were provided with clinical vignettes describing infants with sentinel injuries and were asked questions about their differential diagnosis and management plan. Respondents were then classified as either “aware” or “not aware” based on their responses, and a multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables most strongly correlated with awareness. RESULTS: The survey achieved a response rate of 23.4%. Of the 582 respondents, 65% were aware that bruises and intra-oral injuries in pre-cruising children are red flags for possible physical abuse. Respondents were more likely to be aware of bruises as sentinel injuries (91.9%) than they were of intra-oral injuries (67.2%). Paediatric subspecialists were significantly less likely than general paediatricians to be aware of sentinel injuries as red flags for later serious abuse (adjusted OR=0.57, 95% CI 0.37–0.88, p=0.01). Other important trends included higher awareness with more recent completion of residency, and also with additional training in the area of child abuse and neglect. CONCLUSION: Over one-third of Canadian paediatricians are unaware that unexplained bruising and intra-oral bleeding in a pre-cruising child should prompt assessment for possible abuse. Further physician education is warranted to ensure that paediatricians understand the importance of sentinel injuries and the indications for initiating investigations to detect occult injuries of child abuse. Future directions include the development of physician training opportunities in the area of identifying and managing sentinel injuries, as well as extending the study population to include family physicians who provide primary care to children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→