Home delivery of an injury prevention kit for children in four French cities: a controlled randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Home delivery of counselling and safety devices to prevent child injuries could help parents to adopt safe behaviour. The aim of this study was to test a safety kit designed and used in Quebec (Canada). DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: One hundred families from four towns in the Paris suburbs were visited at home by nurses or doctors when their child reached 6-9 months. Selection criteria were: primipara, medical problem, psychological, and/or socioeconomic difficulties. INTERVENTIONS: During the first visit, 50 families (group 1) received counselling and a kit including preventive devices and pamphlets about indoor injuries and ways to avoid them. The other 50 families (group 2) received counselling but not the kit. A second home visit was made 6-8 weeks later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of safety improvements was calculated 6-8 weeks after a first home visit. Perceived usefulness of the kit was collected from families and from interviewers. RESULTS: Between the first and the second visits, safety improvement was significantly higher in the group with the kit. This was mainly related to the risk of fall (p<0.02), fire and burns (p<0.001), poisoning (p<0.01), and suffocation (p<0.001). For improvement related to devices provided in the kit, the difference between the groups was significant: 64.4% improvement in group 1 versus 41.2% in group 2 (p<0.01). The relative risk (RR) of safety improvement between groups was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 1.80). Even for improvements not related to the kit the difference remained significant: 31.2% in group 1 versus 20.2% in group 2 (p<0.05); RR = 1.54 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.93). CONCLUSION: Routine home visits by social services offer a good opportunity to tackle child injury prevention. Free delivery of prevention kits and counselling allow families to modify their behaviour and homes so as to reduce risks.

[Evaluation of the effectiveness of an injury prevention kit delivery for toddlers in four French cities]. / Evaluation de l'efficacité de la remise d'une trousse de prévention des accidents domestiques de jeunes enfants: essai d'intervention dans quatre communes des Hauts-de-Seine (France).

BACKGROUND: The home delivery of counseling and devices intended to prevent child injuries could help parents to adopt safe behavior more efficiently. The aim of the present study was to adapt and test in France a safety kit designed and used in Quebec (Canada). The intervention program (kit delivery and counseling) was assessed by measuring 6 to 8 weeks after a first home visit the percentage of safety changes adopted by the families included in the survey, compared with the pre-intervention situation; and by evaluating the satisfaction of families with their participation in the survey, and the satisfaction of nurses with the use of this new tool. POPULATION AND METHOD: One hundred families from 4 towns in the Hauts-de-Seine department in the Paris suburbs (Boulogne, Chaville, Sèvres, Ville d'Avray) were selected by the social services for home visits by nurses or doctors, when their child reached the age of 6 to 9 months. Selection criteria were usually primipara, medical problem, psychological and/or socio-economic difficulties. During the first visit, 49 families (group 1) (1 family lost for follow-up) received the usual informative and preventive counseling, and a kit including preventive devices and pamphlets about indoor injuries and ways of avoiding them. The other 50 families (group 2) received counseling but not the kit. Between 6 and 8 weeks later, a second home visit was paid to all selected families. RESULTS: Between the first and the second visits, the percentage of safety improvement was significantly higher in group 1 (with the kit) than in group 2 (without the kit). This improvement mainly related to the risk of fall (P < 0.02), fire and burns (P < 0.001), poisoning (P < 0.01) and suffocation (P < 0.001). When the analysis was focused on safety improvement related to devices provided in the kit, the difference between the 2 groups was significant: 67.8% of safety improvement in group 1 vs 38.1% in group 2 (P < 0.001). The relative risk (RR) was 1,78 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1,18-2,68). Even for items not related to the devices provided, the difference remained significant: 48.6% in group 1 vs 28.8% in group 2 (P < 0.001); RR =1,31 (95% CI: 1,23-1,40). The perceived usefulness of the kit was discussed in a focus group with all nurses and doctors. On the whole, the judgment was very positive, mainly because the kit facilitated the introduction of the notion of accident prevention in the discussion at home. CONCLUSION: As in the canadian survey, our results indicate that routine home visits by the social services offer a good opportunity to introduce the subject of child injury prevention. Free delivery of prevention kit and simple counseling allow often deprived families to modify their behavior and to arrange their apartments so as to reduce risks.