Assessing the effect of four types of direct mail messages to promote the uptake of residential lead remediation funds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the efficacy of direct mailing using four types of messaging on promoting the uptake of residential lead remediation (RLR) funds in Lancaster, PA, USA. Study design: We designed a quasi-experiment to assess the effect of 4 RLR messages sent to households in Lancaster, PA by direct mail between September and December 2020: a brief flyer (F); a detailed brochure + the flyer (BF); a health infographic + the flyer (IF); and an application form + the flyer (AFF). Methods: Mailers were sent to addresses in four census tracts; each census tract received a different message. Both English and Spanish versions were sent. The outcomes were the event rate defined as the number of phone call inquiries received, and the number of applications received. The association between type of messaging and household type (owner-vs renter-occupied) was assessed using a chi square test. Results: The event rates for the renter-occupied households were lower than for owner-occupied households, regardless of treatment. The event rates for renter-occupied households in the F, BF, IF and AFF groups were 0.00%, 0.35%, 0.12% and 0.18% respectively compared to 0.93%, 0.45%, 0.86% and 1.32% for homeowners. More applications were received from homeowners, and the event rate of the owner-occupied households was significantly different from that of renter-occupied homes (p-value = 0.001). Conclusions: Event rates and applications received were higher for owner-occupied households than they were for renter-occupied households. Direct mailing of RLR information is feasible especially if households at high risk for lead poisoning are targeted.
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 | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".