CARES (Children ARE Safe) Mobile Safety Center Partnership. If you build it, will they come? Using a mobile safety centre to disseminate safety information and products to low-income urban families

Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
Injury Prevention (Impact Factor: 1.89). 05/2009; 15(2):95-9. DOI: 10.1136/ip.2008.018325
Source: PubMed


To examine the utilisation-related outcomes associated with visiting the Johns Hopkins CareS (Children are Safe) Mobile Safety Center (MSC), a 40-foot vehicle designed to deliver effective injury prevention interventions and education to low-income urban families.
Utilisation-related data were collected when the MSC was accessible at a community health centre and at community events from August 2004 to July 2006 in Baltimore City.
Adults bringing their child for well child care at a community health centre and MSC visitors at community events.
Low-cost safety products and free personalized educational services are provided on the MSC, which replicates a home environment and contains interactive exhibits.
Perceived benefits of visiting the MSC; products and services received.
MSC visitors (n = 83) and non-visitors (n = 127) did not differ in sociodemographic and injury-related characteristics; 96% of visitors reported learning something new as a result of their visit and 98% would recommend the MSC. During the first 2 years of operation, the MSC made 273 appearances, serving 6086 people. Home child safety products accounted for 71% of the 559 products distributed; educational materials made up 87% of the 7982 services received. Car safety seats accounted for 23% of the products distributed; installations made up 4% of the services received.
This approach to disseminating injury prevention interventions holds promise for enhancing the appeal of safety information and increasing the protection of children.

14 Reads
  • Source
    • "Firefighters followed the same protocols for installation and resident education as in the Standard program, with the following additions: 1) community health workers (CHWs) went door-to-door one week in advance of the fire department's visit and on the day of the visit to inform residents about the free services, answer residents' questions about services, and encourage residents to participate; 2) a safety educator visited the home with the firefighters to provide tailored home safety education on hot water temperatures and CO poisoning; and 3) a mobile safety center with interactive educational exhibits and low cost safety products parked in the neighborhood on the day of the fire department's visit, and residents were invited to visit it (Bulzacchelli et al. 2009; Gielen et al. 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Door-to-door canvassing and installation of smoke alarms have been found to be effective at increasing the number of homes protected. This analysis reports on how smoke alarm coverage changes six months after a home visiting program in a large urban sample, and how this change varies by characteristics of the residents and characteristics of the services delivered during the home visit. Fire department Standard and Enhanced home visiting programs were compared. During the home visit, fire fighters installed lithium battery smoke alarms. Residents in the Enhanced program received tailored education about fire safety. Six months after the home visit, participating residences were visited to complete a follow-up survey and to have the installed alarms checked. 81% of the 672 homes that had a working smoke alarm on every level of the home at the end of the home visit remained safe at follow-up, and 87% of the residents found the home visit was very useful, and these rates did not differ between the Enhanced and Standard programs. The degree to which firefighters delivered their services varied, although households in which the resident’s engagement with the fire department team was rated as excellent were 3.96 times as likely to be safe at follow-up compared to those with poor or fair resident engagement (p=0.03). There is a need to better understand how to maximize the time spent with residents during smoke alarm home visiting programs. This study helps with the development of methods needed for implementing and evaluating such programs in real-world settings.
    11/2014; 1(1):30. DOI:10.1186/s40621-014-0030-3
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A mobile safety center (MSC) provided education and reduced-cost safety products to low-income urban families. We evaluated uptake of this service under 3 different conditions, and safety-related knowledge and behavior associated with visiting the MSC among 210 families. Utilization varied widely under the 3 different conditions. At follow-up, MSC visitors scored slightly higher on a knowledge test than nonvisitors and improved more in reported car safety seat use, but did not differ in observed safety product use. This study provides very modest evidence of a positive impact of the MSC when its services are provided at a community health center.
    Family & community health 04/2009; 32(2):147-58. DOI:10.1097/FCH.0b013e31819947a6 · 0.99 Impact Factor
  • Source

    1 12/2010; Johns Hopkins University.
Show more