Accidental injury: risk and preventative interventions

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention (Review)

BACKGROUND

In industrialised countries injuries (including burns, poisoning or drowning) are the leading cause of childhood death and steep social gradients exist in child injury mortality and morbidity. The majority of injuries in pre-school children occur at home but there is little meta-analytic evidence that child home safety interventions reduce injury rates or improve a range of safety practices, and little evidence on their effect by social group.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effectiveness of home safety education, with or without the provision of low cost, discounted or free equipment (hereafter referred to as home safety interventions), in reducing child injury rates or increasing home safety practices and whether the effect varied by social group.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), CINAHL (EBSCO) and DARE (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library. We also searched websites and conference proceedings and searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and previously published reviews. We contacted authors of included studies as well as relevant organisations. The most recent search for trials was May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after (CBA) studies where home safety education with or without the provision of safety equipment was provided to those aged 19 years and under, and which reported injury, safety practices or possession of safety equipment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We attempted to obtain individual participant level data (IPD) for all included studies and summary data and IPD were simultaneously combined in meta-regressions by social and demographic variables. Pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated for injuries which occurred during the studies, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for the uptake of safety equipment or safety practices, with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies, involving 2,605,044 people, are included in this review. Fifty-four studies involving 812,705 people were comparable enough to be included in at least one meta-analysis. Thirty-five (65%) studies were RCTs. Nineteen (35%) of the studies included in the meta-analysis provided IPD. There was a lack of evidence that home safety interventions reduced rates of thermal injuries or poisoning. There was some evidence that interventions may reduce injury rates after adjusting CBA studies for baseline injury rates (IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Greater reductions in injury rates were found for interventions delivered in the home (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91), and for those interventions not providing safety equipment (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92). Home safety interventions were effective in increasing the proportion of families with safe hot tap water temperatures (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.86), functional smoke alarms (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.52), a fire escape plan (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.77), storing medicines (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.84) and cleaning products (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.96) out of reach, having syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.44) or poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.70 to 6.39), having fitted stair gates (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.17), and having socket covers on unused sockets (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.96). Interventions providing free, low cost or discounted safety equipment appeared to be more effective in improving some safety practices than those interventions not doing so. There was no consistent evidence that interventions were less effective in families whose children were at greater risk of injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Home safety interventions most commonly provided as one-to-one, face-to-face education, especially with the provision of safety equipment, are effective in increasing a range of safety practices. There is some evidence that such interventions may reduce injury rates, particularly where interventions are provided at home. Conflicting findings regarding interventions providing safety equipment on safety practices and injury outcomes are likely to be explained by two large studies; one clinic-based study provided equipment but did not reduce injury rates and one school-based study did not provide equipment but did demonstrate a significant reduction in injury rates. There was no consistent evidence that home safety education, with or without the provision of safety equipment, was less effective in those participants at greater risk of injury. Further studies are still required to confirm these findings with respect to injury rates.

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention

BACKGROUND

In industrialised countries injuries (including burns, poisoning or drowning) are the leading cause of childhood death and steep social gradients exist in child injury mortality and morbidity. The majority of injuries in pre-school children occur at home but there is little meta-analytic evidence that child home safety interventions reduce injury rates or improve a range of safety practices, and little evidence on their effect by social group.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effectiveness of home safety education, with or without the provision of low cost, discounted or free equipment (hereafter referred to as home safety interventions), in reducing child injury rates or increasing home safety practices and whether the effect varied by social group.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), CINAHL (EBSCO) and DARE (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library. We also searched websites and conference proceedings and searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and previously published reviews. We contacted authors of included studies as well as relevant organisations. The most recent search for trials was May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after (CBA) studies where home safety education with or without the provision of safety equipment was provided to those aged 19 years and under, and which reported injury, safety practices or possession of safety equipment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We attempted to obtain individual participant level data (IPD) for all included studies and summary data and IPD were simultaneously combined in meta-regressions by social and demographic variables. Pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated for injuries which occurred during the studies, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for the uptake of safety equipment or safety practices, with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies, involving 2,605,044 people, are included in this review. Fifty-four studies involving 812,705 people were comparable enough to be included in at least one meta-analysis. Thirty-five (65%) studies were RCTs. Nineteen (35%) of the studies included in the meta-analysis provided IPD.There was a lack of evidence that home safety interventions reduced rates of thermal injuries or poisoning. There was some evidence that interventions may reduce injury rates after adjusting CBA studies for baseline injury rates (IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Greater reductions in injury rates were found for interventions delivered in the home (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91), and for those interventions not providing safety equipment (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92).Home safety interventions were effective in increasing the proportion of families with safe hot tap water temperatures (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.86), functional smoke alarms (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.52), a fire escape plan (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.77), storing medicines (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.84) and cleaning products (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.96) out of reach, having syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.44) or poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.70 to 6.39), having fitted stair gates (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.17), and having socket covers on unused sockets (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.96).Interventions providing free, low cost or discounted safety equipment appeared to be more effective in improving some safety practices than those interventions not doing so. There was no consistent evidence that interventions were less effective in families whose children were at greater risk of injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Home safety interventions most commonly provided as one-to-one, face-to-face education, especially with the provision of safety equipment, are effective in increasing a range of safety practices. There is some evidence that such interventions may reduce injury rates, particularly where interventions are provided at home. Conflicting findings regarding interventions providing safety equipment on safety practices and injury outcomes are likely to be explained by two large studies; one clinic-based study provided equipment but did not reduce injury rates and one school-based study did not provide equipment but did demonstrate a significant reduction in injury rates. There was no consistent evidence that home safety education, with or without the provision of safety equipment, was less effective in those participants at greater risk of injury. Further studies are still required to confirm these findings with respect to injury rates.

Does targeting injury prevention towards families in disadvantaged areas reduce inequalities in safety practices?

Inequalities in childhood injury and safety practices exist, but there is little evidence that targeted interventions can reduce such inequalities. This study examines the effect of a home safety intervention on reducing inequalities in safety practices using a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Families with children <5 years from disadvantaged areas were randomized to receive a standardized health visitor safety consultation and free or low-cost safety equipment fitted in the home or to usual care. The impact of the intervention in terms of stair gate use and functioning smoke alarms was compared by ethnic group, maternal age, housing tenure, family type and receipt of state-provided means-tested benefits at 1-year follow-up. Marked inequalities were found for both safety practices by each socio-economic characteristic prior to the intervention. The intervention significantly reduced inequalities in stair gate use by housing tenure (P = 0.006) and receipt of benefits (P = 0.04), but did not reduce inequalities in functioning smoke alarms. We conclude that a home safety intervention targeted at deprived areas addressing the barriers of cost and needing help to fit equipment was only partially successful in reducing inequalities in safety practices. Other strategies will be required to reduce inequalities especially in relation to functioning smoke alarms.

Maternal psychological adjustment and knowledge of infant development as predictors of home safety practices in rural low-income communities

BACKGROUND

Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death among toddlers in the United States. Toddlers spend the majority of time at home, and the use of recommended safety practices can prevent many injuries.

OBJECTIVE

Maternal psychological adjustment and understanding of child development are thought to influence the implementation of safety practices; however, the extent to which either factor is related has been examined with small samples and without attention to potential confounding. We hypothesize that mothers' use of safety practices will be higher when mothers have more knowledge of development and better psychological adjustment.

METHODS

This study is part of the Family Life Project, a longitudinal birth cohort of children from poor rural communities (n = 1611) and an ethnographic sample (n = 36). Mothers in the birth cohort completed scales to measure knowledge of development, psychological adjustment, and home safety practices. Factor analysis of the safety scale resulted in 4 subscales. Each subscale was predicted from maternal knowledge and adjustment in multivariable regression. Mothers in the ethnographic study described sources of information about home safety, current practices, and barriers.

RESULTS

Analyses indicated that mothers with better psychological adjustment were more likely to implement all of the safety practices, and mothers with more knowledge about development were more likely to minimize subtle hazards and install safety devices. An interaction between maternal adjustment and knowledge suggested that mothers with psychological distress were more likely to install safety devices if they had greater knowledge of development. Mothers reported that health care providers were the primary source of safety information, and barriers to implementation included poverty and lack of stable housing.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of development and better psychological adjustment are associated with improved home safety. Knowledge about development is especially important for mothers with poor mental health. Pediatricians and designers of injury-prevention programs should consider the role of maternal mental health in child safety.

Diuretics for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Lung edema may complicate respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the risks and benefits of diuretic administration in preterm infants with RDS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The standard search method of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) were searched using the following keywords: <exp respiratory distress syndrome> and <exp diuretics>. These searches were updated in April 2003 and March 2007. In addition, the abstract books of the American Thoracic Society and Society for Pediatric Research were searched. A MEDLINE and CENTRAL search was conducted in March 2007 using the keyword "Respiratory Distress Syndrome" alone, to make sure to find studies medications recently classified as diuretics, such as theophylline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were included in which preterm infants with RDS and less than 5 days of age were randomly allocated to diuretic administration. Of those trials, studies were only included in which at least one of the following outcomes measures was evaluated: mortality, patent ductus arteriosus, hypovolemic shock, intraventricular hemorrhage, renal failure, duration of oxygen supplementation, duration of mechanical ventilation, need for oxygen supplementation at 28 days of life, oxygen supplementation at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age (gestational age + postnatal age), length of stay, number of rehospitalizations during the first year of life, and neurodevelopmental outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The standard method for the Cochrane Collaboration, which is described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook, was used. Two investigators extracted, assessed and coded separately all data for each study. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies met inclusion criteria. Six studies using furosemide were done before the current era of prenatal steroids, surfactant and fluid restriction. Furosemide administration had no long-term benefits. Furosemide-induced transient improvement in pulmonary function did not outweigh an increased risk for patent ductus arteriosus and for hemodynamic instability. In one recent study, theophylline had no long-term benefits. Theophylline significantly decreased the risk of oligoanuria and transiently increased renal function, but did not significantly affect renal function at discharge or other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no data to support routine administration of furosemide in preterm infants with RDS. Elective administration of furosemide to any patient with RDS should be carefully weighed against the risk of precipitating hypovolemia or developing a symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus. There are not enough data to support routine administration of low-dose theophylline in preterm infants with RDS.

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention

BACKGROUND

In industrialised countries injuries are the leading cause of childhood death and steep social gradients exist in child injury mortality and morbidity. The majority of injuries in pre-school children occur at home, but there is little meta-analytic evidence that child home safety interventions improve a range of safety practices or reduce injury rates and little evidence on their effect by social group.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effectiveness of home safety education, with or without the provision of low cost, discounted or free equipment in increasing home safety practices or reducing child injury rates and whether the effect varied by social group.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, DARE, ASSIA, Psychinfo and Web of Science, plus a range of relevant web sites, conference proceedings and bibliographies. We contacted authors of included studies and surveyed a range of organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after studies where home safety education with or without the provision of safety equipment was provided to those aged 19 years and under, which reported safety practices, possession of safety equipment or injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We attempted to obtain individual participant level data (IPD) for all included studies and summary data and IPD were simultaneoulsy combined in meta-regressions by social and demographic variables.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty studies were included; 37 of which were included in at least one meta-analysis. Twenty-three (62%) were RCTs and 12 (32%) included in the meta-analysis provided IPD. Home safety education was effective in increasing the proportion of families with safe hot tap water temperatures (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 180), functional smoke alarms (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.75), storing medicines (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.13) and cleaning products (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.17) out of reach, syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.44) and poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.66, 95% CI 1.84 to 7.27), fitted stair gates (1.26, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.51), socket covers on unused sockets (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.48 to 9.39) and storing sharp objects out of reach (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.29). There was a lack of evidence that interventions reduced rates of thermal injuries, poisoning or a range of injuries. There was no consistent evidence that interventions were less effective in families whose children were at greater risk of injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Home safety education provided most commonly as one-to-one, face-to-face education, in a clinical setting or at home, especially with the provision of safety equipment is effective in increasing a range of safety practices. There is a lack of evidence regarding its impact on child injury rates. There was no consistent evidence that home safety education, with or without the provision of safety equipment was less effective in those at greater risk of injury.