Article

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention

Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. .
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2012; 9(9):CD005014. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005014.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Michael Craig Watson, Jul 04, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
139 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Unintentional injury is the leading cause of preventable death in children in the UK, and 0-4-year-olds frequently attend emergency departments following injuries in the home. Parenting programmes designed to support parents, promote behaviour change and enhance parent-child relationships have been shown to improve health outcomes in children. It is not known whether group-based parenting programmes have the potential to prevent unintentional injuries in preschool children. METHODS: A study to develop a group-based parenting programme to prevent unintentional home injuries in preschool children, and assess the feasibility of evaluation through a cluster-randomised controlled trial. The intervention, designed for parents of children who have sustained a medically attended injury, will be developed with two voluntary sector organisations. The feasibility study will assess ability to recruit parents, deliver the programme and follow-up participants. Participants will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3 months and 6 months, and report injuries in their preschool children using a tool designed and validated for this study. Qualitative methods will assess user and deliverer perceptions of the programme. DISCUSSION: This study will develop the first group-based parenting programme to prevent injuries in preschool children, and design tools for parent-reported injury outcomes. A key challenge will be to recruit parents to participate in a manner that is non-stigmatising, and does not result in feelings of guilt or belief that they are perceived to be a bad parent. The findings will be used to prepare a trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.
    Injury Prevention 01/2013; 20(1). DOI:10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040689 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Most childhood unintentional injuries occur in the home; however, very little home injury prevention information is tailored to developing countries. Utilizing our previously developed information dissemination tools and a hazard assessment checklist tailored to a low-income neighborhood in Pakistan, we pilot tested and compared the effectiveness of two dissemination tools. Methods: Two low-income neighborhoods were mapped, identifying families with a child aged between 12 and 59 months. In June and July 2010, all enrolled households underwent a home hazard assessment at the same time hazard reduction education was being given using an in-home tutorial or a pamphlet. A follow up assessment was conducted 4-5 months later. Results: 503 households were enrolled; 256 received a tutorial and 247 a pamphlet. The two groups differed significantly (p < 0.01) in level of maternal education and relationship of the child to the primary caregiver. However, when controlling for these variables, those receiving an in-home tutorial had a higher odds of hazard reduction than the pamphlet group for uncovered vats of water (OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.28, 3.58), an open fire within reach of the child (OR 3.55, 95% CI: 1.80, 7.00), and inappropriately labeled cooking fuel containers (OR 1.86, 95% CI: 1.07, 3.25). Conclusions: This pilot project demonstrates the potential utility of using home-visit tutorials to decrease home hazards in a low-income neighborhood in Pakistan. A longer-term randomized study is needed to assess actual effectiveness of the use of allied health workers for home-based injury education and whether this results in decreased home injuries.
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 03/2013; 10(3):1113-24. DOI:10.3390/ijerph10031113 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To explore the knowledge and reported thermal injury prevention practices among parents of children aged 0-4 years in disadvantaged areas. METHODS: Parents of pre-school children in Children's Centres in four study areas in England (Nottingham, Newcastle, Norwich and Bristol) were interviewed using a structured schedule. Interviews covered smoke alarms, bedtime routines, fire escape plans, other thermal prevention practices and parental knowledge of first aid. RESULTS: Of the 200 respondents, most reported ownership of at least one smoke alarm (n=191, 96%), of which 95% were working. Half reported a fire prevention bedtime routine (n=105, 53%) or fire escape plan (n=81, 42%). Most parents had matches or lighters in the home (n=159, 80%), some stored where children under 5 years of age could reach them (n=30, 19%). There was a high prevalence of irons (n=188, 94%) and hair straighteners (n=140, 70%). A third of both devices were used daily. Just 17 (12%) parents reported leaving hair straighteners, when hot but not in use, in a heatproof bag. Knowledge of correct initial first aid for a small burn was good (n=165, 83%), but parents reported other potentially harmful actions, for example, applying ointment (n=44, 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Most families report at least one working smoke alarm, but many do not have fire escape plans or fire prevention bedtime routines. A number of reported practices could compromise child safety, such as storage of matches or lighters and leaving hair straighteners to cool unprotected. Reappraisal of health promotion messages, in light of new household consumables, is necessary.
    Archives of Disease in Childhood 04/2013; 98(7). DOI:10.1136/archdischild-2012-302901 · 2.91 Impact Factor