Development and Evaluation of a Web-Based Family-Centered Decision Support Tool About Firearm Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many youth in the USA have access to a loaded and unlocked firearm in their home. Discussions between adult family members have the potential to positively influence firearm storage. PURPOSE: Work with firearm-owning parents to develop and obtain preliminary data about the efficacy of a family-centered decision support tool about firearm storage. METHODS: We adapted the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide for Two to the issue of firearm storage, producing the Family Safety Check-In. Subsequently, we evaluated its acceptability and impact on intentions to make a plan with their partner (or other adult sharing parental duties) about safer firearm storage. Participants were parents/guardians of at least one school-aged child, had firearms in their home, and resided in the USA (n = 402). They completed a web-based pre-test survey, were randomized to the Family Safety Check-In or an American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) informational resource about firearm storage for families, and then completed a post-test survey. RESULTS: The Family Safety Check-In had higher ratings for acceptability (B = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.58-1.90) and appropriateness (B = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.72-2.19) than the AAP resource. Participants in the Family Safety Check-In condition also had greater intentions to make a plan with their partner about storing firearms more safely (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.26-2.87). CONCLUSIONS: The Family Safety Check-In is a promising direction for harm reduction that warrants further evaluation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".