Quantifying the effect of a community-based injury prevention program in Queensland using a generalized estimating equation approach

Keeping Children Safe: a multicentre programme of research to increase the evidence base for preventing unintentional injuries in the home in the under-fives

Background

Unintentional injuries among 0- to 4-year-olds are a major public health problem incurring substantial NHS, individual and societal costs. However, evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions is lacking.

Aim

To increase the evidence base for thermal injury, falls and poisoning prevention for the under-fives.

Methods

Six work streams comprising five multicentre case–control studies assessing risk and protective factors, a study measuring quality of life and injury costs, national surveys of children’s centres, interviews with children’s centre staff and parents, a systematic review of barriers to, and facilitators of, prevention and systematic overviews, meta-analyses and decision analyses of home safety interventions. Evidence from these studies informed the design of an injury prevention briefing (IPB) for children’s centres for preventing fire-related injuries and implementation support (training and facilitation). This was evaluated by a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial comparing IPB and support (IPB+), IPB only (no support) and usual care. The primary outcome was parent-reported possession of a fire escape plan. Evidence from all work streams subsequently informed the design of an IPB for preventing thermal injuries, falls and poisoning.

Results

Modifiable risk factors for falls, poisoning and scalds were found. Most injured children and their families incurred small to moderate health-care and non-health-care costs, with a few incurring more substantial costs. Meta-analyses and decision analyses found that home safety interventions increased the use of smoke alarms and stair gates, promoted safe hot tap water temperatures, fire escape planning and storage of medicines and household products, and reduced baby walker use. Generally, more intensive interventions were the most effective, but these were not always the most cost-effective interventions. Children’s centre and parental barriers to, and facilitators of, injury prevention were identified. Children’s centres were interested in preventing injuries, and believed that they could prevent them, but few had an evidence-based strategic approach and they needed support to develop this. The IPB was implemented by children’s centres in both intervention arms, with greater implementation in the IPB+ arm. Compared with usual care, more IPB+ arm families received advice on key safety messages, and more families in each intervention arm attended fire safety sessions. The intervention did not increase the prevalence of fire escape plans [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) IPB only vs. usual care 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.49; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.41, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.20] but did increase the proportion of families reporting more fire escape behaviours (AOR IPB only vs. usual care 2.56, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.76; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.78, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.15). IPB-only families were less likely to report match play by children (AOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.94) and reported more bedtime fire safety routines (AOR for a 1-unit increase in the number of routines 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.31) than usual-care families. The IPB-only intervention was less costly and marginally more effective than usual care. The IPB+ intervention was more costly and marginally more effective than usual care.

Limitations

Our case–control studies demonstrate associations between modifiable risk factors and injuries but not causality. Some injury cost estimates are imprecise because of small numbers. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were limited by the quality of the included studies, the small numbers of studies reporting outcomes and significant heterogeneity, partly explained by differences in interventions. Network meta-analysis (NMA) categorised interventions more finely, but some variation remained. Decision analyses are likely to underestimate cost-effectiveness for a number of reasons. IPB implementation varied between children’s centres. Greater implementation may have resulted in changes in more fire safety behaviours.

Conclusions

Our studies provide new evidence about the effectiveness of, as well as economic evaluation of, home safety interventions. Evidence-based resources for preventing thermal injuries, falls and scalds were developed. Providing such resources to children’s centres increases their injury prevention activity and some parental safety behaviours.

Future work

Further randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses and NMAs are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home safety interventions. Further work is required to measure NHS, family and societal costs and utility decrements for childhood home injuries and to evaluate complex multicomponent interventions such as home safety schemes using a single analytical model.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65067450 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01452191.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.