Caroline A Mulvaney

University of Nottingham, Nottingham, ENG, United Kingdom

Are you Caroline A Mulvaney?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)5.95 Total impact

  • Article: Safety education impact and good practice: a review
    Caroline A. Mulvaney, Michael C. Watson, Gail Errington
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – The aim of this literature review was to examine recent evidence of the impact of safety education for children and young people on unintentional injury rates and to update an earlier review. Evidence was sought that linked safety education for children and young people in schools, centres and other settings with changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and reductions in injury. The relevance of ten principles of effective safety education to the papers was considered. Design/methodology/approach – A range of bibliographic databases was searched for potentially relevant papers. Titles and abstracts, and then full copies of papers were examined and retained if considered relevant. Findings – From 495 potentially relevant papers, 12 papers were retained that met the aims of the review. The papers covered a range of topics including home safety, use of all-terrain vehicles and pedestrian safety. While the majority of papers described the effect of an intervention on injury prevention, several described the development of an injury prevention programme. Several papers provided evidence of the impact of safety education on knowledge, behaviour, risk and skills. No papers provided evidence of the impact of safety education on injury rates. Practical implications – The importance of involving children in designing successful safety education interventions is key. Working with multiple agencies and adoption of a broader community approach is likely to increase the effectiveness of safety education. Originality/value – The review illustrates the value of applying the ten principles of effective safety education to designing unintentional injury prevention interventions for children and young people.
    Health Education 12/2011; 112(1):15-30.
  • Source
    Article: The effect of walking intervention on blood pressure control: a systematic review.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hypertension is a major public health problem and a key risk factor of cardiovascular diseases. Increased physical activity has been recommended as an important lifestyle modification for the prevention and control of hypertension. However the optimal characteristics for a physical activity programme remain open to debate. Walking is recommended by healthcare professionals as a form of exercise for controlling hypertension and nurses find it difficult to provide advice about this form of physical activity. Studies testing the effect of walking on blood pressure have produced inconsistent findings. To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of walking intervention on blood pressure. A systematic search of the literature was conducted using a range of electronic and evidence-based databases to identify studies. Criteria for study inclusion were a randomised controlled trial design with a non-intervention control group; study samples were aged 16 years and over; the intervention was predominantly focused on walking and blood pressure was an outcome. Data extraction and quality appraisal were carried out independently by two reviewers; a third reviewer was consulted when needed. A total of 27 randomised controlled trials were included and nine of the 27 trials found an effect of walking intervention on blood pressure control. Walking intervention tends to be effective from studies with larger sample size. A beneficial effect of walking on blood pressure tended to employ moderate to high-intensity walking and a longer intervention period than those trials not showing the effect. The results of this review provide evidence of the beneficial effects of walking on lowering blood pressure. Recommendations on lowering blood pressure with a walking activity should address the issue of walking intensity to achieve a beneficial effect on lowering blood pressure. Future research investigating the effect of walking intensity on blood pressure levels and rigorous design of walking interventions to achieve better adherence and methodological quality is required.
    International journal of nursing studies 12/2010; 47(12):1545-61. · 1.91 Impact Factor
  • Article: Preventing childhood falls at home: meta-analysis and meta-regression.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Childhood falls are an important global public health problem, but evidence on their prevention has not been quantitatively synthesized. Despite social inequalities in childhood injury rates, there is a lack of evidence examining the effect of fall-prevention practices by social group. A systematic review of literature was conducted up to June 2004 and meta-analysis using individual patient data to evaluate the effect of home-safety interventions on fall-prevention practices and fall-injury rates. Meta-regression examined the effect of interventions by child age, gender, and social variables. Included were 21 studies, 13 of which contributed to meta-analyses. Home-safety interventions increased stair-gate use (OR=1.26; 95% CI=1.05, 1.51), and there was some evidence of reduced baby-walker use (OR=0.66; 95% CI=0.43, 1.00), but little evidence of increased possession of window locks, screens, or windows with limited opening (OR=1.16, 95% CI=0.84, 1.59) or of nonslip bath mats or decals (OR=1.15; 95% CI=0.51, 2.62). Two studies reported nonsignificant effects on falls (baby-walker-related falls on flat ground [OR=1.35; 95% CI=0.64, 2.83] or down steps or stairs [OR=0.70; 95% CI=0.14, 3.49]) and medically attended falls (OR=0.78; 95% CI=0.61, 1.00). Home-safety education and the provision of safety equipment improved some fall-prevention practices, but the impact on fall-injury rates is unclear. There was some evidence that the effect of home-safety interventions varied by social group.
    American Journal of Preventive Medicine 11/2008; 35(4):370-379. · 4.04 Impact Factor