Modifiable risk factors for scald injury in children under 5 years of age: A Multi-centre Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between a range of modifiable risk factors and medically attended scalds in children under the age of 5 years. METHODS: Multicentre matched case-control study in acute hospitals, minor injury units and GP practices in four study centres in England. Cases comprised 338 children under 5 presenting with a scald, and 1438 control participants matched on age, gender, date of event and study centre. Parents/caregivers completed questionnaires on safety practices, safety equipment use, home hazards and potential confounders. Odds ratios were estimated using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Parents of cases were significantly more likely than parents of controls to have left hot drinks within reach of their child (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.33, 95%CI 1.63 to 3.31; population attributable fraction (PAF) 31%). They were more likely not to have taught children rules about climbing on kitchen objects (AOR 1.66, 95%CI 1.12 to 2.47; PAF 20%); what to do or not do when parents are cooking (AOR 1.95, 95%CI 1.33 to 2.85; PAF 26%); and about hot things in the kitchen (AOR 1.89, 95%CI 1.30 to 2.75; PAF 26%). CONCLUSIONS: Some scald injuries may be prevented by parents keeping hot drinks out of reach of children and by teaching children rules about not climbing on objects in the kitchen, what to do or not do whilst parents are cooking using the top of the cooker and about hot objects in the kitchen. Further studies, providing a more sophisticated exploration of the immediate antecedents of scalds are required to quantify associations between other hazards and behaviours and scalds in young children.

Prevention of childhood poisoning in the home: overview of systematic reviews and a systematic review of primary studies.

Unintentional poisoning is a significant child public health problem. This systematic overview of reviews, supplemented with a systematic review of recently published primary studies synthesizes evidence on non-legislative interventions to reduce childhood poisonings in the home with particular reference to interventions that could be implemented by Children's Centres in England or community health or social care services in other high income countries. Thirteen systematic reviews, two meta-analyses and 47 primary studies were identified. The interventions most commonly comprised education, provision of cupboard/drawer locks, and poison control centre (PCC) number stickers. Meta-analyses and primary studies provided evidence that interventions improved poison prevention practices. Twenty eight per cent of studies reporting safe medicine storage (OR from meta-analysis 1.57, 95% CI 1.22-2.02), 23% reporting safe storage of other products (OR from meta-analysis 1.63, 95% CI 1.22-2.17) and 46% reporting availability of PCC numbers (OR from meta-analysis 3.67, 95% CI 1.84-7.33) demonstrated significant effects favouring the intervention group. There was a lack of evidence that interventions reduced poisoning rates. Parents should be provided with poison prevention education, cupboard/drawer locks and emergency contact numbers to use in the event of a poisoning. Further research is required to determine whether improving poison prevention practices reduces poisoning rates.

The effectiveness of different interventions to promote poison prevention behaviours in households with children: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence from 2 previous meta-analyses that interventions to promote poison prevention behaviours are effective in increasing a range of poison prevention practices in households with children. The published meta-analyses compared any intervention against a "usual care or no intervention" which potentially limits the usefulness of the analysis to decision makers. We aim to use network meta-analysis to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions to increase prevalence of safe storage of i) Medicines only, ii) Other household products only, iii) Poisons (both medicines and non-medicines), iv) Poisonous plants; and v) Possession of poison control centre (PCC) telephone number in households with children. METHODS: Data on the effectiveness of poison prevention interventions was extracted from primary studies identified in 2 newly-undertaken systematic reviews. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using a random effects network meta-analysis model. RESULTS: 28 of the 47 primary studies identified were included in the analysis. Compared to usual care intervention, the intervention with education and low cost/free equipment elements was most effective in promoting safe storage of medicines (odds ratio 2.51, 95% credible interval 1.01 to 6.00) while interventions with education, low cost/free equipment, home safety inspection and fitting components were most effective in promoting safe storage of other household products (2.52, 1.12 to 7.13), safe storage of poisons (11.10, 1.60 to 141.50) and possession of PCC number (38.82, 2.19 to 687.10). No one intervention package was more effective than the others in promoting safe storage of poisonous plants. CONCLUSION: The most effective interventions varied by poison prevention practice, but education alone was not the most effective intervention for any poison prevention practice. Commissioners and providers of poison prevention interventions should tailor the interventions they commission or provide to the poison prevention practices they wish to promote. HIGHLIGHTS: Network meta-analysis is useful for comparing multiple injury-prevention interventions. More intensive poison prevention interventions were more effective than education alone. Education and low cost/free equipment was most effective in promoting safe storage of medicines. Education, low cost/free equipment, home safety inspection and fitting was most effective in promoting safe storage of household products and poisons. Education, low cost/free equipment and home inspection were most effective in promoting possession of a poison control centre number. None of the intervention packages was more effective than the others in promoting safe storage of poisonous plants.

Preventing childhood scalds within the home: Overview of systematic reviews and a systematic review of primary studies.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise and evaluate the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to prevent scalds in children. METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews (SR) and a SR of primary studies were performed evaluating interventions to prevent scalds in children. A comprehensive literature search was conducted covering various resources up to October 2012. Experimental and controlled observational studies reporting scald injuries, safety practices and safety equipment use were included. RESULTS: Fourteen systematic reviews and 39 primary studies were included. There is little evidence that interventions are effective in reducing the incidence of scalds in children. More evidence was found that inventions are effective in promoting safe hot tap water temperature, especially when home safety education, home safety checks and discounted or free safety equipment including thermometers and thermostatic mixing valves were provided. No consistent evidence was found for the effectiveness of interventions on the safe handling of hot food or drinks nor improving kitchen safety practices. CONCLUSION: Education, home safety checks along with thermometers or thermostatic mixing valves should be promoted to reduce tap water scalds. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions on scald injuries and to disentangle the effects of multifaceted interventions on scald injuries and safety practices.

Network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent falls in children under age 5 years.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of a range of interventions to increase the possession of safety equipment or behaviours to prevent falls in children under 5 years of age in the home. METHODS: A recently published systematic review identified studies to be included in a network meta-analysis; an extension of pairwise meta-analysis that enables comparison of all evaluated interventions simultaneously, including comparisons not directly compared in individual studies. RESULTS: 29 primary studies were identified, of which 16 were included in at least 1 of 4 network meta-analyses. For increasing possession of a fitted stair gate, the most intensive intervention (including education, low cost/free home safety equipment, home safety inspection and fitting) was the most likely to be the most effective, with an OR versus usual care of 7.80 (95% CrI 3.08 to 21.3). For reducing possession or use of a baby walker: education only was most likely to be most effective, with an OR versus usual care of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.31 to 0.84). Little difference was found between interventions for possession of window locks (most intensive intervention versus usual care OR=1.56 (95% CrI 0.02 to 89.8)) and for not leaving a child alone on a high surface (education vs usual care OR=0.89 (95% CrI 0.10 to 9.67)). There was insufficient evidence for network meta-analysis for possession and use of bath mats. CONCLUSIONS: These results will inform healthcare providers of the most effective components of interventions and can be used in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Non-resuscitative first-aid training for children and laypeople: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is currently known about the effectiveness of first-aid training for children and laypeople. We have undertaken a systematic review to synthesise the evidence and inform policy and practice in this area. METHODS: A range of bibliographic databases were searched. Studies were eligible if they used experimental designs, provided first-aid training to laypeople or children and reported first-aid knowledge, skills behaviours or confidence. Studies were selected for inclusion, data extracted and risk of bias assessed by two independent reviewers. Findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: 23 studies (14 randomised controlled trials and 9 non-randomised studies) were included, 12 of which recruited children or young people (≤19 years old). Most studies reported significant effects favouring the intervention group; 11 out of 16 studies reported significant increases in first-aid knowledge; 11 out of 13 studies reported significant increases in first-aid skills; 2 out of 5 studies reported significant improvements in helping behaviour; and 2 out of 3 studies reported significant increases in confidence in undertaking first aid. Only one study undertook an economic evaluation; finding an intensive instructor-led course was more effective, but had significantly higher costs than either a less-intensive instructor-led course or a video-delivered course. Most studies were at risk of bias, particularly selection, performance or detection bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to support provision of first-aid training, particularly for children or young people, but many studies were judged to be at risk of bias. Conclusions cannot be drawn about which first-aid training courses or programmes are most effective or the age at which training can be most effectively provided. Few studies evaluated training in adult laypeople. High-quality studies are required assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of standardised first-aid training to inform policy development and provision of first-aid training.

National survey of the injury prevention activities of children's centres.

Children's centres were established across England to provide a range of services including early education, social care and health to pre-school children and their families. We surveyed children's centres to ascertain the activities they were undertaking to prevent unintentional injuries in the under fives. A postal questionnaire was sent to a sample of children's centre managers (n = 694). It included questions on current activities, knowledge and attitudes to injury prevention, health priorities and partnership working. Responses were received from 384 (56%) children's centres. Overall, 58% considered unintentional injury prevention to be one of the three main child health priorities for their centre. Over half the respondents (59%) did not know if there was an injury prevention group in their area, and 21% did not know if there was a home safety equipment scheme. Knowledge of how child injury deaths occur in the home was poor. Only 11% knew the major cause of injury deaths in children under five. Lack of both staff time and funding were seen as important barriers by children's centre staff to undertake injury prevention activities. Nearly all stated that training (97%) and assistance with planning injury prevention (94%) would be helpful to their centres. Children's centres need further support if they are to effectively tackle this important public health area.

Preventing childhood falls within the home: overview of systematic reviews and a systematic review of primary studies.

In most countries falls are the most common medically attended childhood injury and the majority of injuries in pre-school children occur at home. Numerous systematic reviews have reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of falls prevention interventions, but this evidence has not been synthesised into an overview, making it difficult for policy makers and practitioners to easily access the evidence. To synthesise all available evidence, we conducted an overview of reviews of home safety interventions targeting childhood falls, extracted data from primary studies included in the reviews and supplemented this with a systematic review of primary studies published subsequent to the reviews. Bibliographic databases, websites, conference proceedings, journals and bibliographies of included studies were searched for systematic reviews of studies with experimental or controlled observational designs. Thirteen reviews were identified containing 24 primary studies. Searches for additional primary studies identified five further studies not included in reviews. Evidence of the effect of interventions on falls or fall injuries was sparse, with only one of three primary studies reporting this outcome finding a reduction in falls. Interventions were effective in promoting the use of safety gates and furniture corner covers. There was some evidence of a reduction in baby walker use. The effect on the use of window safety devices, non-slip bath mats/decals and the reduction of tripping hazards was mixed. There was limited evidence that interventions were effective in improving lighting in corridors, altering furniture layout and restricting access to roofs. Most interventions to prevent childhood falls at home have not been evaluated in terms of their effect on reducing falls. Policy makers and practitioners should promote use of safety gates and furniture covers and restriction of baby walker use. Further research evaluating the effect of interventions to reduce falls and falls-related injuries is urgently required.

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention (Review).

BACKGROUND: In industrialised countries injuries (including burns, poisoning or drowning) are the leading cause of childhood death and steep social gradients exist in child injury mortality and morbidity. The majority of injuries in pre-school children occur at home but there is little meta-analytic evidence that child home safety interventions reduce injury rates or improve a range of safety practices, and little evidence on their effect by social group. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effectiveness of home safety education, with or without the provision of low cost, discounted or free equipment (hereafter referred to as home safety interventions), in reducing child injury rates or increasing home safety practices and whether the effect varied by social group. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), CINAHL (EBSCO) and DARE (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library. We also searched websites and conference proceedings and searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and previously published reviews. We contacted authors of included studies as well as relevant organisations. The most recent search for trials was May 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after (CBA) studies where home safety education with or without the provision of safety equipment was provided to those aged 19 years and under, and which reported injury, safety practices or possession of safety equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We attempted to obtain individual participant level data (IPD) for all included studies and summary data and IPD were simultaneously combined in meta-regressions by social and demographic variables. Pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated for injuries which occurred during the studies, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for the uptake of safety equipment or safety practices, with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-eight studies, involving 2,605,044 people, are included in this review. Fifty-four studies involving 812,705 people were comparable enough to be included in at least one meta-analysis. Thirty-five (65%) studies were RCTs. Nineteen (35%) of the studies included in the meta-analysis provided IPD. There was a lack of evidence that home safety interventions reduced rates of thermal injuries or poisoning. There was some evidence that interventions may reduce injury rates after adjusting CBA studies for baseline injury rates (IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Greater reductions in injury rates were found for interventions delivered in the home (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91), and for those interventions not providing safety equipment (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92). Home safety interventions were effective in increasing the proportion of families with safe hot tap water temperatures (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.86), functional smoke alarms (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.52), a fire escape plan (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.77), storing medicines (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.84) and cleaning products (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.96) out of reach, having syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.44) or poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.70 to 6.39), having fitted stair gates (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.17), and having socket covers on unused sockets (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.96). Interventions providing free, low cost or discounted safety equipment appeared to be more effective in improving some safety practices than those interventions not doing so. There was no consistent evidence that interventions were less effective in families whose children were at greater risk of injury. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home safety interventions most commonly provided as one-to-one, face-to-face education, especially with the provision of safety equipment, are effective in increasing a range of safety practices. There is some evidence that such interventions may reduce injury rates, particularly where interventions are provided at home. Conflicting findings regarding interventions providing safety equipment on safety practices and injury outcomes are likely to be explained by two large studies; one clinic-based study provided equipment but did not reduce injury rates and one school-based study did not provide equipment but did demonstrate a significant reduction in injury rates. There was no consistent evidence that home safety education, with or without the provision of safety equipment, was less effective in those participants at greater risk of injury. Further studies are still required to confirm these findings with respect to injury rates.

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention.

BACKGROUND: In industrialised countries injuries (including burns, poisoning or drowning) are the leading cause of childhood death and steep social gradients exist in child injury mortality and morbidity. The majority of injuries in pre-school children occur at home but there is little meta-analytic evidence that child home safety interventions reduce injury rates or improve a range of safety practices, and little evidence on their effect by social group. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effectiveness of home safety education, with or without the provision of low cost, discounted or free equipment (hereafter referred to as home safety interventions), in reducing child injury rates or increasing home safety practices and whether the effect varied by social group. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), CINAHL (EBSCO) and DARE (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library. We also searched websites and conference proceedings and searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and previously published reviews. We contacted authors of included studies as well as relevant organisations. The most recent search for trials was May 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after (CBA) studies where home safety education with or without the provision of safety equipment was provided to those aged 19 years and under, and which reported injury, safety practices or possession of safety equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We attempted to obtain individual participant level data (IPD) for all included studies and summary data and IPD were simultaneously combined in meta-regressions by social and demographic variables. Pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated for injuries which occurred during the studies, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for the uptake of safety equipment or safety practices, with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-eight studies, involving 2,605,044 people, are included in this review. Fifty-four studies involving 812,705 people were comparable enough to be included in at least one meta-analysis. Thirty-five (65%) studies were RCTs. Nineteen (35%) of the studies included in the meta-analysis provided IPD.There was a lack of evidence that home safety interventions reduced rates of thermal injuries or poisoning. There was some evidence that interventions may reduce injury rates after adjusting CBA studies for baseline injury rates (IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Greater reductions in injury rates were found for interventions delivered in the home (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91), and for those interventions not providing safety equipment (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92).Home safety interventions were effective in increasing the proportion of families with safe hot tap water temperatures (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.86), functional smoke alarms (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.52), a fire escape plan (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.77), storing medicines (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.84) and cleaning products (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.96) out of reach, having syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.44) or poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.70 to 6.39), having fitted stair gates (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.17), and having socket covers on unused sockets (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.96).Interventions providing free, low cost or discounted safety equipment appeared to be more effective in improving some safety practices than those interventions not doing so. There was no consistent evidence that interventions were less effective in families whose children were at greater risk of injury. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home safety interventions most commonly provided as one-to-one, face-to-face education, especially with the provision of safety equipment, are effective in increasing a range of safety practices. There is some evidence that such interventions may reduce injury rates, particularly where interventions are provided at home. Conflicting findings regarding interventions providing safety equipment on safety practices and injury outcomes are likely to be explained by two large studies; one clinic-based study provided equipment but did not reduce injury rates and one school-based study did not provide equipment but did demonstrate a significant reduction in injury rates. There was no consistent evidence that home safety education, with or without the provision of safety equipment, was less effective in those participants at greater risk of injury. Further studies are still required to confirm these findings with respect to injury rates.

Network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase the uptake of smoke alarms.

This study is the first known to use network meta-analysis to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase the prevalence of functioning smoke alarms in households with children. The authors identified 24 primary studies from a systematic review of reviews and of more recently published primary studies, of which 23 (17 randomized controlled trials and 6 nonrandomized comparative studies) were included in 1 of the following 2 network meta-analyses: 1) possession of a functioning alarm: interventions that were more "intensive" (i.e., included components providing equipment (with or without fitting), home inspection, or both, in addition to education) generally were more effective. The intervention containing all of the aforementioned components was identified as being the most likely to be the most effective (probability (best) = 0.66), with an odds ratio versus usual care of 7.15 (95% credible interval: 2.40, 22.73); 2) type of battery-powered alarms: ionization alarms with lithium batteries were most likely to be the best type for increasing functioning possession (probability (best) = 0.69). Smoke alarm promotion programs should ensure they provide the combination of interventions most likely to be effective.