Sznajder M, Leduc S, Janvrin MP, Bonnin MH, Aegerter P, Baudier F, Chevallier B. Home delivery of an injury prevention kit for children in four French cities: a controlled randomized trial.
Inj Prev 2003;
9:261-5; discussion 265. [PMID:
12966017 PMCID:
PMC1730977 DOI:
10.1136/ip.9.3.261]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Home delivery of counselling and safety devices to prevent child injuries could help parents to adopt safe behaviour. The aim of this study was to test a safety kit designed and used in Quebec (Canada).
DESIGN AND SUBJECTS
One hundred families from four towns in the Paris suburbs were visited at home by nurses or doctors when their child reached 6-9 months. Selection criteria were: primipara, medical problem, psychological, and/or socioeconomic difficulties.
INTERVENTIONS
During the first visit, 50 families (group 1) received counselling and a kit including preventive devices and pamphlets about indoor injuries and ways to avoid them. The other 50 families (group 2) received counselling but not the kit. A second home visit was made 6-8 weeks later.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The number of safety improvements was calculated 6-8 weeks after a first home visit. Perceived usefulness of the kit was collected from families and from interviewers.
RESULTS
Between the first and the second visits, safety improvement was significantly higher in the group with the kit. This was mainly related to the risk of fall (p<0.02), fire and burns (p<0.001), poisoning (p<0.01), and suffocation (p<0.001). For improvement related to devices provided in the kit, the difference between the groups was significant: 64.4% improvement in group 1 versus 41.2% in group 2 (p<0.01). The relative risk (RR) of safety improvement between groups was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 1.80). Even for improvements not related to the kit the difference remained significant: 31.2% in group 1 versus 20.2% in group 2 (p<0.05); RR = 1.54 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.93).
CONCLUSION
Routine home visits by social services offer a good opportunity to tackle child injury prevention. Free delivery of prevention kits and counselling allow families to modify their behaviour and homes so as to reduce risks.
Collapse