This article has a correction
Please see: Preventing injuries in children: cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care
- Denise Kendrick, senior lecturer (denise.kendrick{at}nottingham.ac.uk)a,
- Patricia Marsh, research assistantb,
- Katherine Fielding, lecturer in medical statisticsb,
- Paul Miller, lecturer in health economicsb
- aDivision of General Practice, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH
- bDivision of Public Health Medicine and Epidemiology, Queen's Medical Centre
- Correspondence to: Dr Kendrick
Abstract
Objective: To assess the effectiveness of safety advice at child health surveillance consultations, provision of low cost safety equipment to families receiving means tested state benefits, home safety checks, and first aid training on frequencyand severity of unintentional injuries in children at home.
Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial.
Setting:36 general practices in Nottingham.
Subjects:All children aged 3-12 months registered with participating practices.
Interventions: A package of safety advice at child health surveillance consultations at 6-9, 12-15, and 18-24 months;provision of low cost safety equipment to families on means tested state benefits; and home safety checks and first aid training by health visitors.
Outcome measures: Primary outcomes measures were frequency and severity of medically attended injuries. Secondary outcome measures were self reported safety practices, possession and use of safety equipment, knowledge and confidence in dealing with first aid, and perceptions of risk of injury and risk of hazards assessed by postalquestionnaire at baseline and follow up at 25 months.
Results: At baseline, both groups had similar risk factors for injury, sociodemographic characteristics, safety practices, possession and use of safety equipment, knowledge and confidence in dealing with first aid, and perceptions of risk. No significant difference was found in frequency of at least one medically attended injury (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to1.30), at least one attendance at an accident and emergency department for injury (, 0.76 to 1.37), at least one primary care attendance for injury (0.75, 0.48 to 1.17), or at least one hospital admission for injury (0.69, 0.42 to 1.12). No significant difference in the secondary outcome measures was found between the intervention and control groups.
Conclusions: The intervention package was not effective in reducing the frequency of minor unintentional injuries in children at home, and larger trials are required to assess the effect on more severe injuries.
Footnotes
-
Funding Trent NHS Executive.
-
Competing interests None declared.
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Why the US healthcare system is failing, and what might rescue it
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Risk of cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published 16 May 2012
Most responses
Is spending on proton beam therapy for cancer going too far, too fast? (11 responses)
Published 17 Apr 2012 - 23:32
What are the benefits of an early diagnosis? (8 responses)
Published 18 Apr 2012
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21