1
|
Kendrick D, Ablewhite J, Achana F, Benford P, Clacy R, Coffey F, Cooper N, Coupland C, Deave T, Goodenough T, Hawkins A, Hayes M, Hindmarch P, Hubbard S, Kay B, Kumar A, Majsak-Newman G, McColl E, McDaid L, Miller P, Mulvaney C, Peel I, Pitchforth E, Reading R, Saramago P, Stewart J, Sutton A, Timblin C, Towner E, Watson MC, Wynn P, Young B, Zou K. Keeping Children Safe: a multicentre programme of research to increase the evidence base for preventing unintentional injuries in the home in the under-fives. PROGRAMME GRANTS FOR APPLIED RESEARCH 2017. [DOI: 10.3310/pgfar05140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
BackgroundUnintentional 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.AimTo increase the evidence base for thermal injury, falls and poisoning prevention for the under-fives.MethodsSix 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.ResultsModifiable 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.LimitationsOur 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.ConclusionsOur 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 workFurther 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 registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN65067450 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01452191.FundingThe 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denise Kendrick
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Joanne Ablewhite
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Felix Achana
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Penny Benford
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Rose Clacy
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Frank Coffey
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Nicola Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Carol Coupland
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Toity Deave
- Centre for Child and Adolescent Health, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
| | - Trudy Goodenough
- Centre for Child and Adolescent Health, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
| | - Adrian Hawkins
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Mike Hayes
- Child Accident Prevention Trust, London, UK
| | - Paul Hindmarch
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Stephanie Hubbard
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Bryony Kay
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Arun Kumar
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Elaine McColl
- Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Lisa McDaid
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - Phil Miller
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Isabel Peel
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Richard Reading
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
- Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - Pedro Saramago
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | - Jane Stewart
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Alex Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Clare Timblin
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Elizabeth Towner
- Centre for Child and Adolescent Health, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael C Watson
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Persephone Wynn
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Ben Young
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kun Zou
- Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Deave T, Hawkins A, Kumar A, Hayes M, Cooper N, Watson M, Ablewhite J, Coupland C, Sutton A, Majsak-Newman G, McDaid L, Goodenough T, Beckett K, McColl E, Reading R, Kendrick D. Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children's centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0172584. [PMID: 28339460 PMCID: PMC5365108 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2016] [Accepted: 02/05/2017] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Many developed countries have high mortality rates for fire-related deaths in children aged 0–14 years with steep social gradients. Evidence-based interventions to promote fire safety practices exist, but the impact of implementing a range of these interventions in children’s services has not been assessed. We developed an Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB), which brought together evidence about effective fire safety interventions and good practice in delivering interventions; plus training and facilitation to support its use and evaluated its implementation. Methods We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated qualitative and cost-effectiveness nested studies, across four study sites in England involving children’s centres in disadvantaged areas; participants were staff and families attending those centres. Centres were stratified by study site and randomised within strata to one of three arms: IPB plus facilitation (IPB+), IPB only, usual care. IPB+ centres received initial training and facilitation at months 1, 3, and 8. Baseline data from children’s centres were collected between August 2011 and January 2012 and follow-up data were collected between June 2012 and June 2013. Parent baseline data were collected between January 2012 and May 2012 and follow-up data between May 2013 and September 2013. Data comprised baseline and 12 month parent- and staff-completed questionnaires, facilitation contact data, activity logs and staff interviews. The primary outcome was whether families had a plan for escaping from a house fire. Treatment arms were compared using multilevel models to account for clustering by children’s centre. Results 1112 parents at 36 children’s centres participated. There was no significant effect of the intervention on families’ possession of plans for escaping from a house fire (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) IPB only vs. usual care: 0.93, 95%CI 0.58, 1.49; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.41, 95%CI 0.91, 2.20). However, significantly more families in the intervention arms reported more behaviours for escaping from house fires (AOR IPB only vs. usual care: 2.56, 95%CI 01.38, 4.76; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.78, 95%CI 1.01, 3.15). Conclusion Our study demonstrated that children’s centres can deliver an injury prevention intervention to families in disadvantaged communities and achieve changes in home safety behaviours.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toity Deave
- Centre for Child & Adolescent Health, Health & Applied Sciences, University of the West of England Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Adrian Hawkins
- Institute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Arun Kumar
- Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Mike Hayes
- Child Accident Prevention Trust, Barnet, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nicola Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Watson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Joanne Ablewhite
- Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Carol Coupland
- Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Alex Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Gosia Majsak-Newman
- Norfolk and Suffolk Primary and Community Care Research Office, Hosted by South Norfolk CCG, Norwich, United Kingdom
| | - Lisa McDaid
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, NHS Clinical Research and Trials Unit, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom
| | - Trudy Goodenough
- Centre for Child & Adolescent Health, Health & Applied Sciences, University of the West of England Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Kate Beckett
- University of the West of England, Research and Innovation, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Education Centre, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Elaine McColl
- Institute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Richard Reading
- Jenny Lind Paediatric Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, United Kingdom
| | - Denise Kendrick
- Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hindmarch P, Hawkins A, McColl E, Hayes M, Majsak-Newman G, Ablewhite J, Deave T, Kendrick D. Recruitment and retention strategies and the examination of attrition bias in a randomised controlled trial in children's centres serving families in disadvantaged areas of England. Trials 2015; 16:79. [PMID: 25886131 PMCID: PMC4359386 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0578-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2014] [Accepted: 01/22/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Failure to retain participants in randomised controlled trials and longitudinal studies can cause significant methodological problems. We report the recruitment and retention strategies of a randomised controlled trial to promote fire-related injury prevention in families with pre-school children attending children's centres in disadvantaged areas in England. METHODS Thirty-six children's centres were cluster randomised into one of three arms of a 12-month fire-related injury prevention trial. Two arms delivered safety interventions and there was one control arm. Retention rates compared the numbers of participants responding to the 12-month questionnaire to the number recruited to the trial. Multivariable random effects logistic regression was used to explore factors independently associated with participant retention. RESULTS The trial exceeded its required sample size through the use of multiple recruitment strategies. All children's centres remained in the study, despite increased reorganisation. Parent retention was 68% at 12 months, ranging from 65% to 70% across trial arms and from 62% to 74% across trial sites. There was no significant difference in the rates of retention between trial arms (p = 0.58) or between trial sites (p = 0.16). Retention was significantly lower amongst mothers aged 16-25 years than older mothers [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.41, 0.78], those living in non-owner occupied accommodation than in owner occupied accommodation (AOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38, 0.73) and those living in more disadvantaged areas (most versus least disadvantaged quintiles AOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30, 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Studies recruiting disadvantaged populations should measure and report attrition by socioeconomic factors to enable determination of the extent of attrition bias and estimation of its potential impact on findings. Where differential attrition is anticipated, consideration should be given to over-sampling during recruitment and targeted and more intensive strategies of participant retention in these sub-groups. In transient populations collection of multiple sources of contact information at recruitment and throughout the study may aid retention. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01452191 ; Date of registration: 10 October 2011, ISRCTN65067450.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Hindmarch
- Institute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
| | - Adrian Hawkins
- Institute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
| | - Elaine McColl
- Institute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
| | - Mike Hayes
- Child Accident Prevention Trust, Canterbury Court (1.09), 1-3 Brixton Road, London, SW9 6DE, UK.
| | - Gosia Majsak-Newman
- Clinical Research & Trials Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, NR4 7UY, UK.
| | - Joanne Ablewhite
- Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, Floor 13, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
| | - Toity Deave
- Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.
| | - Denise Kendrick
- Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, Floor 13, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Beckett K, Goodenough T, Deave T, Jaeckle S, McDaid L, Benford P, Hayes M, Towner E, Kendrick D. Implementing an Injury Prevention Briefing to aid delivery of key fire safety messages in UK children's centres: qualitative study nested within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2014; 14:1256. [PMID: 25492496 PMCID: PMC4295482 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2014] [Accepted: 11/19/2014] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To improve the translation of public health evidence into practice, there is a need to increase practitioner involvement in initiative development, to place greater emphasis on contextual knowledge, and to address intervention processes and outcomes. Evidence that demonstrates the need to reduce childhood fire-related injuries is compelling but its translation into practice is inconsistent and limited. With this knowledge the Keeping Children Safe programme developed an "Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB)" using a 7 step process to combine scientific evidence with practitioner contextual knowledge. The IPB was designed specifically for children’s centres (CCs) to support delivery of key fire safety messages to parents. This paper reports the findings of a nested qualitative study within a clustered randomised controlled trial of the IPB, in which staff described their experiences of IPB implementation to aid understanding of why or how the intervention worked. Methods Interviews were conducted with key staff at 24 CCs participating in the two intervention arms: 1) IPB supplemented by initial training and regular facilitation; 2) IPB sent by post with no facilitation. Framework Analysis was applied to these interview data to explore intervention adherence including; exposure or dose; quality of delivery; participant responsiveness; programme differentiation; and staff experience of IPB implementation. This included barriers, facilitators and suggested improvements. Results 83% of CCs regarded the IPB as a simple, accessible tool which raised awareness, and stimulated discussion and behaviour change. 15 CCs suggested minor modifications to format and content. Four levels of implementation were identified according to content, frequency, duration and coverage. Most CCs (75%) achieved ‘extended’ or ‘essential’ IPB implementation. Three universal factors affected all CCs: organisational change and resourcing; working with hard to engage groups; additional demands of participating in a research study. Six specific factors were associated with the implementation level achieved: staff engagement and training; staff continuity; adaptability and flexibility; other agency support; conflicting priorities; facilitation. CCs achieving high implementation levels increased from 58% (no facilitation) to 92% with facilitation. Conclusion Incorporating service provider perspectives and scientific evidence into health education initiatives enhances potential for successful implementation, particularly when supplemented by ongoing training and facilitation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1256) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Denise Kendrick
- School of Medicine, Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|