An Evaluation of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act.

Walton, W. W. (1982). An Evaluation of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Pediatrics, 69(3), 363-370.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

1982

Volume

69

Issue

3

Pages

363-370

DOI

10.1542/peds.69.3.363

DOI registrant

American Academy of Pediatrics

Link

https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.69.3.363

Cited from

engineering_design

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Substrate-Cued Behavior Recruitment
  • In material design and packaging, child-resistant caps recruit adult-only opening and portion-control packaging recruits smaller servings.

    This sourceDocuments that mandated child-resistant (push-and-turn) closures sharply reduced accidental child ingestions — the cap's substrate recruits adult-only opening by engaging a two-action coordination a young child typically lacks; supports both the packaging instance and the motor-coordination basis.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    Walton's abstract shows child-resistant closures cut accidental ingestions among children under 5, which backs the caps half of the claim epidemiologically but says nothing about portion-control packaging.

    “This study investigated the effectiveness of child-resistant closures, required under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, in reducing the incidence of accidental ingestions of 15 regulated substances among children less than 5 years of age. ... The ingestion rate for all substances that require child-resistant closures has declined from 5.7/1,000 children in 1973 to 3.4/1,000 children in 1978.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:758f58f60f6c · see in the full table