Evaluation of the Latrobe Valley Better Health Injury Prevention Program

School-based education programmes for the prevention of unintentional injuries in children and young people

BACKGROUND

Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death in children aged four to 18 years and are a major cause of ill health. The school setting offers the opportunity to deliver preventive interventions to a large number of children and has been used to address a range of public health problems. However, the effectiveness of the school setting for the prevention of different injury mechanisms in school-aged children is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of school-based educational programmes for the prevention of injuries in children and evaluate their impact on improving children's safety skills, behaviour and practices, and knowledge, and assess their cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent searches up to 16 September 2016 for the following electronic databases: Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R); Embase and Embase Classic (Ovid); ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded; ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science; ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index; ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Sciences & Humanities; and the 14 October 2016 for the following electronic databases: Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED); Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA); CINAHL Plus (EBSCO); ZETOC; LILACS; PsycINFO; ERIC; Dissertation Abstracts Online; IBSS; BEI; ASSIA; CSA Sociological Abstracts; Injury Prevention Web; SafetyLit; EconLit (US); PAIS; UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio; Open Grey; Index to Theses in the UK and Ireland; Bibliomap and TRoPHI.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs), and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies that evaluated school-based educational programmes aimed at preventing a range of injury mechanisms. The primary outcome was self-reported or medically attended unintentional (or unspecified intent) injuries and secondary outcomes were observed safety skills, observed behaviour, self-reported behaviour and safety practices, safety knowledge, and health economic outcomes. The control groups received no intervention, a delayed injury-prevention intervention or alternative school-based curricular activities. We included studies that aimed interventions at primary or secondary prevention of injuries from more than one injury mechanism and were delivered, in part or in full, in schools catering for children aged four to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors identified relevant trials from title and abstracts of studies identified in searches and two review authors extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias. We grouped different types of interventions according to the outcome assessed and the injury mechanism targeted. Where data permitted, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to provide a summary of results across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 27 studies reported in 30 articles. The studies had 73,557 participants with 12 studies from the US; four from China; two from each of Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK; and one from each of Israel, Greece and Brazil. Thirteen studies were RCTs, six were non-RCTs and eight were CBAs. Of the included studies, 18 provided some element of the intervention in children aged four to 11 years, 17 studies included children aged 11 to 14 years and nine studies included children aged 14 to 18 years.The overall quality of the results was poor, with the all studies assessed as being at high or unclear risks of bias across multiple domains, and varied interventions and data collection methods employed. Interventions comprised information-giving, peer education or were multi-component.Seven studies reported the primary outcome of injury occurrence and only three of these were similar enough to combine in a meta-analysis, with a pooled incidence rate ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.08; 2073 children) and substantial statistical heterogeneity (I² = 63%). However, this body of evidence was low certainty, due to concerns over this heterogeneity (inconsistency) and imprecision. This heterogeneity may be explained by the non-RCT study design of one of the studies, as a sensitivity analysis with this study removed found stronger evidence of an effect and no heterogeneity (I² = 0%).Two studies report an improvement in safety skills in the intervention group. Likewise, the four studies measuring observed safety behaviour reported an improvement in the intervention group relative to the control. Thirteen out of 19 studies describing self-reported behaviour and safety practices showed improvements, and of the 21 studies assessing changes in safety knowledge, 19 reported an improvement in at least one question domain in the intervention compared to the control group. However, we were unable to pool data for our secondary outcomes, so our conclusions were limited, as they were drawn from highly diverse single studies and the body of evidence was low (safety skills) or very low (behaviour, safety knowledge) certainty. Only one study reported intervention costs but did not undertake a full economic evaluation (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether school-based educational programmes can prevent unintentional injuries. More high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the impact of educational programmes on injury occurrence. There is some weak evidence that such programmes improve safety skills, behaviour/practices and knowledge, although the evidence was of low or very low quality certainty. We found insufficient economic studies to assess cost-effectiveness.

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.

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) 'safe communities' approach to injury prevention has been embraced around the world as a model for co-ordinating community efforts to enhance safety and reduce injury. Approximately 150 communities throughout the world have formal 'Safe Communities' designation. It is of public health interest to determine to what degree the model is successful, and whether it reduces injury rates. This Cochrane Review is an update of a previous published version.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the WHO Safe Communities model to prevent injury in whole populations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and ZETOC. We handsearched selected journals and contacted key people from each WHO Safe Community. The last search was December 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Included studies were those conducted within a WHO Safe Community that reported changes in population injury rates within the community compared to a control community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included evaluations for 21 communities from five countries in two geographical regions in the world: Austria, Sweden and Norway, and Australia and New Zealand. Although positive results were reported for some communities, there was no consistent relationship between being a WHO designated Safe Community and subsequent changes in observed injury rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is marked inconsistency in the results of the studies included in this systematic review. While the frequency of injury in some study communities did reduce following their designation as a WHO Safe Community, there remains insufficient evidence from which to draw definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the model.The lack of consistency in results may be due to the heterogeneity of the approaches to implementing the model, varying efficacy of activities and strategies, varying intensity of implementation and methodological limitations in evaluations. While all communities included in the review fulfilled the WHO Safe Community criteria, these criteria were too general to prescribe a standardised programme of activity or evaluation methodology.Adequate documentation describing how various Safe Communities implemented the model was limited, making it unclear which factors affected success. Where a reduction in injury rates was not reported, lack of information makes it difficult to distinguish whether this was due to problems with the model or with the way in which it was implemented.

The theory of community based health and safety programs: a critical examination

This paper examines the theoretical underpinning of the community based approach to health and safety programs. Drawing upon the literature, a theory is constructed by elucidating assumptions of community based programs. The theory is then put to test by analyzing the extent to which the assumptions are supported by empirical evidence and the extent to which the assumptions have been applied in community based injury prevention practice. Seven principles representing key assumptions of the community based approach to health and safety programs are identified. The analysis suggests that some of the principles may have important shortcomings. Programs overwhelmingly define geographical or geopolitical units as communities, which is problematic considering that these entities can be heterogeneous and characterized by a weak sense of community. This may yield insufficient community mobilization and inadequate program reach. At the same time, none of the principles identified as most plausible appears to be widely or fully applied in program practice. The implication is that many community based health and safety programs do not function at an optimum level, which could explain some of the difficulties in demonstrating effectiveness seen with many of these programs.

Extending systematic reviews to include evidence on implementation: Methodological work on a review of community-based initiatives to prevent injuries

Unintentional injury is a leading cause of mortality and disability among young and old. While evidence about the effectiveness of interventions in reducing injuries is accumulating, reviews of this evidence frequently fail to include details of implementation processes. Our research, of which the work reported here formed a part, had two main objectives: (1) to identify evidence about the implementation of interventions aimed at reducing unintentional injuries amongst children and young people; and (2) to explore methods for systematically reviewing evidence on implementation. Existing systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce unintentional injuries in children and young people formed the starting point for the work reported here. In summary, many of the published papers we identified contained little information on implementation processes and, even when these were discussed, the extent to which authors' claims were based on research evidence was unclear. On the basis of the studies we reviewed implementation data were insufficiently strong to provide a sound evidence base for practitioners and policymakers. Notwithstanding this, we identified valuable data about the context in which such initiatives are implemented and the type of factors that might impinge on implementation. This work has implications in three areas: (1) researchers with an interest in evidence-based public health could be encouraged to consider implementation issues in the design of intervention studies; (2) funding bodies could be encouraged to prioritise intervention studies using mixed methods that will enable researchers to consider effectiveness and implementation; (3) journal editors could work towards increasing the quality of reporting on implementation issues through the development of guidelines.

Evaluation of community-based injury prevention programmes: methodological issues and challenges

The evaluation of comprehensive community-based injury prevention programmes is complex and poses many methodological challenges. There is little consensus in contemporary literature about the most appropriate methods of evaluating these programmes. This study employed a systematic literature review to examine evaluations of 16 community-based injury prevention programmes with regard to key methodological issues and challenges. Three aspects of the evaluated programmes were analysed: assessed elements (context, structure, process, impact, and outcome); study design; and methodological issues addressed. The results showed that context, structure and process assessments were the most neglected aspects of the evaluation studies. The programmes were typically described with minimal discussion of how the context may have influenced the effectiveness. The process (activities) was described rather than evaluated against appropriate standards of comparisons. Impact evaluations adhered more closely to documented guidelines, but half of the evaluations did not include impact variables. Outcome evaluations focused on injury incidence. Most evaluations employed some qualitative methods, but the vast majority of methods used were quantitative. This study indicated that the quasi-experimental study design has become an accepted norm for the evaluation of community-based injury prevention programmes. Most of the evaluations contained explicit details of the methodology used and of the choices related to the methodology. While threats to internal validity were identified in most studies, problems related to external validity and construct validity were largely overlooked by the evaluators.

The effect of safer play equipment on playground injury rates among school children

BACKGROUND

Changes to Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards for playground equipment prompted the removal of hazardous equipment from 136 elementary schools in Toronto. We conducted a study to determine whether applying these new standards and replacing unsafe playground equipment with safe equipment reduced the number of school playground injuries.

METHODS

A total of 86 of the 136 schools with hazardous play equipment had the equipment removed and replaced with safer equipment within the study period (intervention schools). Playground injury rates before and after equipment replacement were compared in intervention schools. A database of incident reports from the Ontario School Board Insurance Exchange was used to identify injury events. There were 225 schools whose equipment did not require replacement (nonintervention schools); these schools served as a natural control group for background injury rates during the study period. Injury rates per 1000 students per month, relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, adjusting for clustering within schools.

RESULTS

The rate of injury in intervention schools decreased from 2.61 (95% CI 1.93-3.29) per 1000 students per month before unsafe equipment was removed to 1.68 (95% CI 1.31-2.05) after it was replaced (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.78). This translated into 550 injuries avoided in the post-intervention period. In nonintervention schools, the rate of injury increased from 1.44 (95% CI 1.07-1.81) to 1.81 (95% CI 1.07-2.53) during the study period (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29-1.52).

INTERPRETATION

The CSA standards were an effective tool in identifying hazardous playground equipment. Removing and replacing unsafe equipment is an effective strategy for preventing playground injuries.

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations

BACKGROUND

The safe communities approach has been embraced around the world as a model for coordinating community efforts to enhance safety and reduce injury. Over 80 communities throughout the world have been formally designated as 'Safe Communities' by the World Health Organization. It is of public health interest to determine to what degree the model is successful, and whether its application does indeed reduce injury rates in communities to which it is introduced.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the Safe Communities model to prevent injury in whole populations, or targeted sub-groups of populations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy was based on electronic searches, handsearches of selected journals, snowballing from reference lists of selected publications and contacting a key person from each WHO-designated Safe Community.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Included studies were those conducted within a WHO Safe Community that reported changes in population injury rates within the community compared to a control community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was not appropriate, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Only seven WHO Safe Communities, of more than 80 worldwide, have undertaken controlled evaluations using objective sources of injury data. These communities represent only four countries from two geographical regions in the world: the Scandinavian countries of Sweden and Norway and the Pacific nations of Australia and New Zealand. Safe Communities in Sweden and Norway have resulted in significant reductions in injury rates. The Australian and New Zealand communities have been unable to replicate the same level of success.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests the WHO Safe Communities model is effective in reducing injuries in whole populations. However, important methodological limitations exist in all studies from which evidence can be obtained. A lack of reported detail makes it unclear which factors facilitate or hinder a programme's success, and makes uncertain, whether the success of any particular application of the model is necessarily replicable in other communities. In evaluated programmes that did not report significant decreases in injury rates, this lack of information makes it difficult to distinguish between evidence of no effect of the model, or no evidence of effect. The four countries that have evaluated their Safe Communities with a sufficiently rigorous study design have higher economic wealth and health standards and lower injury rates than much of the world. No evaluations were available from other parts of the world, despite the designation of WHO Safe Communities in countries such as South Africa, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, Canada, UK and USA. Generalisation of results of studies conducted in just four countries, to the international population needs to be done with caution. There is a need for more high-quality, methodologically strong evaluations of the model in a range of diverse communities and detailed reporting of implementation processes.

All-terrain vehicle injury in children: strategies for prevention

OBJECTIVE

A variety of educational efforts, policies, and regulations have been adopted to reduce all-terrain vehicle (ATV) injury in children. Despite this, ATV use by children continues and serious injuries are common. The purpose of this study was to investigate the knowledge, practices, and beliefs of ATV users to help develop effective educational strategies to promote safer ATV use.

DESIGN

Focus groups were conducted to characterize participant ATV use and safety awareness as well as to explore avenues for prevention. Feedback on draft ATV safety public service announcements was elicited. Themes of transcribed focus group data were summarized.

SETTING

Rural state with high ATV use and injury rates.

SUBJECTS

Adult and adolescent ATV users.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Summaries of focus group discussions.

RESULTS

ATV riders frankly discussed current use and safety behaviors and were aware of some ATV risks. Youths felt that age specific regulation was unlikely to be a helpful strategy. Participants endorsed messages demonstrating graphic consequences as likely to get the attention of young riders regarding risks. Educational settings were suggested, including hunter and driver safety classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to improve ATV safety awareness should clearly show pediatric ATV injury risk and safety practices. Campaigns must also show realistic understanding of current use practices to be credible for users. Messages emphasizing the consequences of ATV use were endorsed as most likely to have impact. Approaches based on age based restrictions were considered unrealistic and alternative strategies were suggested.

What makes community based injury prevention work? In search of evidence of effectiveness

Community based injury prevention work has become a widely accepted strategy among safety promotion specialists. Hundreds of community based injury prevention programs have been implemented since the mid-1970s, but relatively few have been evaluated rigorously, resulting in a lack of consensus regarding the effectiveness of this approach. This study sought to identify key components that contribute to the effectiveness of these programs. The objective was to gain a better understanding of the community based model for injury prevention. The study was performed as a structured review of existing evaluations of injury prevention programs that employed multiple strategies to target different age groups, environments, and situations. The results of this study suggested that there are complex relationships between the outcome and the context, structure, and process of community-wide injury prevention programs. The interconnectedness of these variables made it difficult to provide solid evidence to prioritise in terms of program effectiveness. The evaluations of multifaceted community oriented injury prevention programs were found to have many shortcomings. Meagre descriptions of community characteristics and conditions, insufficient assessment of structural program components, and failure to establish process-outcome relationships contributed to the difficulty of identifying key success factors of the programs.

Influence of an injury reduction program on injury and fitness outcomes among soldiers

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the influence of a multiple injury control intervention on injury and physical fitness outcomes among soldiers attending United States Army Ordnance School Advanced Individual Training.

METHODS

The study design was quasiexperimental involving a historical control group (n = 2559) that was compared to a multiple intervention group (n = 1283). Interventions in the multiple intervention group included modified physical training, injury education, and a unit based injury surveillance system (UBISS). The management responsible for training independently formed an Injury Control Advisory Committee that examined surveillance reports from the UBISS and recommended changes to training. On arrival at school, individual soldiers completed a demographics and lifestyle questionnaire and took an army physical fitness test (APFT: push-ups, sit-ups, and two mile run). Injuries among soldiers were tracked by a clinic based injury surveillance system that was separate from the UBISS. Soldiers completed a final APFT eight weeks after arrival at school.

RESULTS

Cox regression (survival analysis) was used to examine differences in time to the first injury while controlling for group differences in demographics, lifestyle characteristics, and physical fitness. The adjusted relative risk of a time loss injury was 1.5 (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 1.8) times higher in the historical control men and 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.8) times higher in the historical control women compared with the multiple intervention men and women, respectively. After correcting for the lower initial fitness of the multiple intervention group, there were no significant differences between the multiple intervention and historical control groups in terms of improvements in push-ups, sit-ups, or two mile run performance.

CONCLUSIONS

This multiple intervention program contributed to a reduction in injuries while improvements in physical fitness were similar to a traditional physical training program previously used at the school.

Evaluation of the Ngati Porou Community Injury Prevention Project

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the Ngati Porou Community Injury Prevention Project based in a rural district in the North Island of New Zealand with an extensive indigenous population (Maori).

METHOD

The evaluation design was quasi-experimental and included process, impact and outcome measures.

RESULTS

Process evaluation found that the Ngati Porou Community Injury Prevention Project was based on sound principles related to injury prevention, as well as addressing Maori aspirations. The main activities undertaken were: road safety campaigns; alcohol and drug programmes; family violence initiatives; and the development of a playground safety audit. A significant increase in awareness of injury prevention was found among Ngati Porou whanau (families) (pre 17% and post 25%, p < 0.05). Injury morbidity statistics for the period 1996-99 showed a significant decrease in injury rates for all age groups, compared with the comparison community (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The Ngati Porou Community Injury Prevention Project successfully applied the principles of role modelling, life span focus, accessibility, acceptability and active participation. This is a promising model that could be repeated in other indigenous communities.

The process and impact of implementing injury prevention projects in smaller communities in New Zealand

It has been argued that developing community projects is an effective means by which to reduce injury. Two pilot community injury prevention projects (CIPPs) were established in small communities in New Zealand based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Safe Community model. The process and impact of the implementation of these CIPPs was monitored over 3 years. The setting was two small New Zealand communities with populations of <10 000. An external process and impact evaluation was conducted, with data gathered from written documentation, informant interviews and observation. The WHO Safe Community criteria formed the basis of the evaluation framework used. Other essential factors included were identified through the literature and the projects themselves. Findings from each CIPP were considered independently, followed by an examination of the differences observed. The findings from the evaluation of the implementation of these CIPPs are reported in relation to the themes identified in the evaluation framework, namely: community context, ownership and participation, focus and planning, data collection, leadership, management, sustainability and external links. Despite the different contexts, a common conclusion was that if the CIPPs' success was dependent on achieving a meaningful reduction of injury, they were unlikely to succeed. There were, however, a number of strategies and outputs for achieving change that could contribute to increasing safety for the population of interest. These were closely linked to community development strategies and needed greater acknowledgement in the evolution of the CIPPs. Critical to the development of the CIPPs were community capacity and the context in which the projects were operating. These conclusions are likely to apply to other projects in such settings, irrespective of the health outcomes sought.

Controlled evaluation of a community based injury prevention program in Australia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a community based, all age, all injury prevention program, the Safe Living Program, on injury risk and injury rates.

DESIGN

A quasiexperimental population based evaluation using an intervention and comparison community design.

SETTING

The intervention community (Shire of Bulla, n = 37,257) is an outer metropolitan area of Melbourne, Australia. The demographically matched comparison community (Shire of Melton, n=33,592) is located nearby.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The Safe Living Program in the Shire of Bulla targeted injury reduction in all settings with a focus on high risk groups. Strategies included program publicity, education and training, injury hazard reduction, and environmental change. Baseline and follow up measures of program reach, risk factors, and injury rates in both communities were used to evaluate program process, impact, and outcome.

RESULTS

Increase in program awareness was moderate and similar to other community based programs. The program achieved injury hazard reduction on the road, in schools, and, to a more limited extent, in the home. Other changes in injury risk factors could not necessarily be attributed to the program as similar changes were observed in the comparison community. No significant changes were found in rates of injury deaths, hospitalisations, or emergency department presentations in the Shire of Bulla after six years. Self reported household injuries, mostly minor, were reduced in the intervention community, but had been higher at program launch than in the comparison community.

CONCLUSIONS

The Safe Living Program was unable to replicate the significant reductions in injuries reported in other community based interventions. Replication of apparently successful community based injury prevention programs in different settings and populations requires evidence based interventions, sustained and effective program penetration, reliable data systems to measure change, at least one control community, and sufficient budget and time for effects to be observable.