MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390948612 · doi:10.1016/j.burnso.2024.01.003

Epidemiology and perceptions of non-fatal burns among select youth (15–24 years old) from Peshawar Pakistan; a sequential explanatory mixed methods study

2024· article· en· W4390948612 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarwat Masud, Adnan A. Hyder, Uzma Khan, Nadeem Ullah Khan, Pammla Petrucka

Bibliographic record

VenueBurns Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersFogarty International CenterNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)EpidemiologyDemographyThematic analysisQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burns are among the top five cause of unintentional injuries among youth. We aimed to determine the incidence and risk factors of burns in select youth from Pakistan and also explored their perceptions about burns. A sequential explanatory mixed methods study was conducted which comprised of two phases. Phase 1 consisted of a cross-sectional quantitative (quan) survey in which 550 youth (15 to 24 years-old) filled out the WHO community survey tool for injuries and violence and provided data on burns in previous 12 months (2021–22). Youth from four vocational training institutes in Peshawar participated in the study. Phase 2 qualitative (QUAL), comprised of in-depth interviews (IDIs) with participants selected from phase 1 based on the occurrence of burns. STATA™ version 15.1 was used for Phase 1 data analysis and Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial model was used for determining the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of burns. Thematic analysis was performed for interviews from Phase 2. Out of 547 participants 356 (65%) were males while 191 (35%) were females. Burns were reported by 85 participants (15%) while 137 counts of burns were reported. The IRR of burns among young females was 2.89 (1.78–4.69) compared to males in 2021–22. Age, sex, father’s education, and family income were significant risk factors for burns. Six IDIs were conducted with burn victims, two were males while six were females. Four cooking-related burns, and two occupations burns were reported. Two themes that emerged from IDIs were personal carelessness and lack of knowledge and safety. Two sub-themes that were significant for recovery from burns were family support and access to healthcare. Young females are at a higher risk of burn injuries in Pakistan. Various social, demographic, and behavioral risk factors are associated with burns. Pre-burn and post-burn interventions are needed for prevention from burns in youth.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBurns OpenSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207