Parental perspectives of physicians and nurses on child trampoline use: “I feel like I’m just kind of caving to social pressure”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A wealth of evidence demonstrates the potentially injurious consequences for children using trampolines. Despite this evidence, many parents continue to support their children's use of trampolines and instal trampolines around their homes. APPROACH: In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with parents across Canada who are emergency practitioners. We examined physicians' and nurses' (n=56) perspectives on their children's trampoline use. Tenets of risk society theory were used to inform our approach. RESULTS: Three themes were identified through a thematic analysis: (1) heightened injury awareness; (2) social stigma and (3) balancing child development and safety. CONCLUSION: Our findings enrich conversations on child injury prevention by demonstrating how parental attitudes towards children's use of common household features such as trampolines can be shaped by witnessing children's injuries, accessing health information and education and being exposed to public pressures to achieve parental safety ideals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".