PDF
Easy Read
Abridged PDF
Respond to this article- Versions
- bmj.38309.664444.8Fv1
- 330/7484/178 most recent
- Michael Watson, lecturer in public health (michael.watson{at}nottingham.ac.uk)1,
- Denise Kendrick, senior lecturer2,
- Carol Coupland, senior lecturer in medical statistics2,
- Amanda Woods, senior research fellow2,
- Deb Futers, professional lead: health visiting3,
- Jean Robinson, head of information4
- 1 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2HA,
- 2 Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD,
- 3 Rushcliffe Primary Care Trust, Nottingham NG2 6BT,
- 4 Nottingham Health Informatics Service, Nottingham City Primary Care Trust, Nottingham NG1 6GN
- Correspondence to: M Watson
- Accepted 9 November 2004
Abstract
Objective To assess the effectiveness of safety advice and safety equipment in reducing unintentional injuries for families with children aged under 5 years and living in deprived areas.
Design Randomised controlled trial.
Setting 47 general practices in Nottingham.
Participants 3428 families with children under 5.
Intervention A standardised safety consultation and provision of free and fitted stair gates, fire guards, smoke alarms, cupboard locks, and window locks.
Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures were whether a child in the family had at least one injury that required medical attendance and rates of attendance in primary and secondary care and of hospital admission for injury over a two year period. Secondary outcome measures included possession of safety equipment and safety practices.
Results No significant difference was found in the proportion of families in which a child had a medically attended injury (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.50) or in the rates of attendance in secondary care (incidence rate ratio 1.02, 0.90 to 1.13) or admission to hospital (1.02, 0.70 to 1.48). However, children in the intervention arm had a significantly higher attendance rate for injuries in primary care (1.37, 1.11 to 1.70, P = 0.003). At both one and two years' follow up, families in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to have a range of safety practices, but absolute differences in the percentages were relatively small.
Conclusions The intervention resulted in significant improvements in safety practices for up to two years but did not reduce injuries that necessitated medical attendance. Although equipment was provided and fitted free of charge, the observed changes in safety practices may not have been large enough to affect injury rates.
Footnotes
-
Contributors MW wrote the first draft of the paper and contributed to and coordinated the subsequent revisions. MW and DK collected the data. DK, CC, and MW carried out the analysis. DK devised the initial concept and obtained the funding. MW, DK, CC, AW, DF, and JR contributed to the study design, data interpretation, and approved the final manuscript. MW is the guarantor.
-
Funding NHS Executive, Trent. DK was funded by a Department of Health Public Health Career Scientist Award. AW was funded by a Department of Health Primary Care Researcher Development Award.
-
Competing interests None declared.
-
Ethical approval Queen's Medical Centre Research Ethics Committee.
- Accepted 9 November 2004
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: The comforts of spiritualism
Published 23 May 2012
Re: The hardest thing: admitting error
Published 23 May 2012
Ice cream headache as a new example of “Cold headache” in Avicenna’s manuscript
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial seriesCommentary: Larger trials are needed
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Testing athletes, and banning those who take drugs, is unjustifiable
Published 23 May 2012
Most responses
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
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (6 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32