Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children's centres: cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Many developed countries have high mortality rates for fire-related deaths in children aged 0–14 years with steep social gradients. Evidence-based interventions to promote fire safety practices exist, but the impact of implementing a range of these interventions in children’s services has not been assessed. We developed an Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB), which brought together evidence about effective fire safety interventions and good practice in delivering interventions; plus training and facilitation to support its use and evaluated its implementation. Methods: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated qualitative and cost-effectiveness nested studies, across four study sites in England involving children’s centres in disadvantaged areas; participants were staff and families attending those centres. Centres were stratified by study site and randomised within strata to one of three arms: IPB plus facilitation (IPB+), IPB only, usual care. IPB+ centres received initial training and facilitation at months 1, 3, and 8. Baseline data from children’s centres were collected between August 2011 and January 2012 and follow-up data were collected between June 2012 and June 2013. Parent baseline data were collected between January 2012 and May 2012 and follow-up data between May 2013 and September 2013. Data comprised baseline and 12 month parent- and staff-completed questionnaires, facilitation contact data, activity logs and staff interviews. The primary outcome was whether families had a plan for escaping from a house fire. Treatment arms were compared using multilevel models to account for clustering by children’s centre. Results: 1112 parents at 36 children’s centres participated. There was no significant effect of the intervention on families’ possession of plans for escaping from a house fire (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) IPB only vs. usual care: 0.93, 95%CI 0.58, 1.49; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.41, 95%CI 0.91, 2.20). However, significantly more families in the intervention arms reported more behaviours for escaping from house fires (AOR IPB only vs. usual care: 2.56, 95%CI 01.38, 4.76; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.78, 95%CI 1.01, 3.15). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that children’s centres can deliver an injury prevention intervention to families in disadvantaged communities and achieve changes in home safety behaviours

The 'ebb and flow' of transatlantic regulatory cooperation in banking

Do financial crises promote or hamper transatlantic regulatory cooperation in banking? This article argues that financial crises have an impact upon the alignment of regulatory preferences of the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), causing an 'ebb and flow' in transatlantic cooperation. When EU-US preferences are broadly aligned in periods of financial stability, transatlantic regulatory cooperation is intense. It is relatively easy for the EU and US to agree on market-friendly regulation promoted by banks. When preferences are different, especially in the context and aftermath of the exogenous shock of financial crises, transatlantic cooperation is more problematic because crises re-assert the importance of nationally embedded patterns of market organisation