Rapid Responses to:

PRIMARY CARE: Michael Watson, Denise Kendrick, Carol Coupland, Amanda Woods, Deb Futers, and Jean Robinson Providing child safety equipment to prevent injuries: randomised controlled trial BMJ 2005; 330: 178 [Abstract] [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Inconclusive results

Alison Coulter, Damian Basher (Public Health Specialist Trainee), Peter Davidson (Consultant in Public Health), Andrew Mortimore (Director of Public Health), Glenn Turner (Director of Health Promotion), Celia Palmer (Consultant in Public Health).   (25 May 2005)

Inconclusive results 25 May 2005
Alison Coulter, Public Health Specialist Trainee Public Health Team, Southampton City PCT SO15 5NB, Damian Basher (Public Health Specialist Trainee), Peter Davidson (Consultant in Public Health), Andrew Mortimore (Director of Public Health), Glenn Turner (Director of Health Promotion), Celia Palmer (Consultant in Public Health). Send response to journal: Re: Inconclusive results	Dear Editor Accidental injury to children is a public health priority and so we welcome the paper assessing the effectiveness of safety equipment and safety advice by Watson et al (1). We note the inconclusive findings of this study, but are concerned that the potentially important benefits of safety equipment and advice may have been missed. The title of this study could be misleading as the main intervention is the safety consultation. The difference in the presence of safety equipment between the two arms of the trial is in reality very small. The absolute change in behaviour associated with having safety equipment is small: the number needed to treat for use of a stairgate is 10, and for a fireguard is 30. The injury rate in the control arm is lower than expected, and this combined with the small difference in safety interventions between the two arms of the trial, could mean that this study is underpowered. This could explain why a significant result was not found. Your Editorial ‘This week in the BMJ’ also suggests that safety equipment is ineffective. We question this conclusion and the generalisability of the results of this study. We are concerned that, based on this publication, commissioners will conclude that accident prevention is ineffective and withdraw services from vulnerable families. 1. Watson M, Kendrick D, Coupland C, Woods A, Futers D, Robinson J. Providing child safety equipment to prevent injuries: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2005; 330: 178-. Competing interests: None declared