Adapting a selective parent-focused child sexual abuse prevention curriculum for a universal audience: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents are an obvious, but underutilized player in the prevention of child sexual abuse (CSA). A handful of universal parent-focused prevention programs have emerged, however, the evidence for these programs is mixed and the programs suffer ubiquitously from barriers to implementation (e.g., poor engagement, low participation) thereby limiting public health impact. To combat these barriers and improve evidence, researchers previously developed and tested a selective parent-focused CSA prevention program. While promising, the selective approach still leaves a gap in the prevention landscape-parents from the universal audience. However, there appear to be no standardized methods to inform this type of adaptation-interventions designed as universal or selective have primarily been delivered as such. This study sought to adapt the selective curriculum for a universal audience and examined the acceptability and feasibility of the program for evaluation in a future trial. Using mixed methods, N = 31 parents (i.e., primary caregiver for a child under 13) completed pre- and post-workshop surveys followed by a brief individual interview conducted via Zoom. Interviews, coded using content analysis methods, focused on three themes: parents as agents of prevention (e.g., prior action, confidence), curriculum (e.g., content, design), and engagement (e.g., future marketing and promotion). Overall participants' mean score on CSA-related awareness and intention to use protective behavioral strategies increased. The participants found the curriculum highly acceptable noting strengths in the content and design. All told, the results of this pilot study suggest the acceptability and feasibility of examining the efficacy of the universal parent-focused curriculum in a larger trial. Procedural challenges, such as bots in recruitment, identify areas of caution in design of the larger trial and a roadmap for others seeking to adapt selective programs for universal audiences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".