Validation of a home safety questionnaire used in a series of case-control studies

© 2014 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved. Conclusions This study found that the validity of selfreports varied with safety practice. Questions with a high specificity will be useful for practitioners for identifying households who may benefit from home safety interventions and will be useful for researchers as measures of exposures or outcomes.Objective To measure the validity of safety behaviours, safety equipment use and hazards reported on a questionnaire by parents/carers with children aged under 5 years participating in a series of home safety casecontrol studies.Methods The questionnaire measured safety behaviours, safety equipment use and hazards being used as exposures in five case-control studies. Responses to questions were compared with observations made during a home visit. The researchers making observations were blind to questionnaire responses.Results In total, 162 families participated in the study. Overall agreement between reported and observed values of the safety practices ranged from 48.5% to 97.3%. Only 3 safety practices (stair gate at the top of stairs, stair gate at the bottom of stairs, stairs are carpeted) had substantial agreement based on the κ statistic (k=0.65, 0.72, 0.74, respectively). Sensitivity was high (≥70%) for 19 of the 30 safety practices, and specificity was high (≥70%) for 20 of the 30 practices. Overall for 24 safety practices, a higher proportion of respondents over-reported than under-reported safe practice (negative predictive value>positive predictive value). For six safety practices, a higher proportion of respondents under-reported than over-reported safe practice (negative predictive valu

Recruitment and retention strategies and the examination of attrition bias in a randomised controlled trial in children’s centres serving families in disadvantaged areas of England

Background Failure to retain participants in randomised controlled trials and longitudinal studies can cause significant methodological problems. We report the recruitment and retention strategies of a randomised controlled trial to promote fire-related injury prevention in families with pre-school children attending children’s centres in disadvantaged areas in England. Methods Thirty-six children’s centres were cluster randomised into one of three arms of a 12-month fire-related injury prevention trial. Two arms delivered safety interventions and there was one control arm. Retention rates compared the numbers of participants responding to the 12-month questionnaire to the number recruited to the trial. Multivariable random effects logistic regression was used to explore factors independently associated with participant retention. Results The trial exceeded its required sample size through the use of multiple recruitment strategies. All children’s centres remained in the study, despite increased reorganisation. Parent retention was 68% at 12 months, ranging from 65% to 70% across trial arms and from 62% to 74% across trial sites. There was no significant difference in the rates of retention between trial arms (p = 0.58) or between trial sites (p = 0.16). Retention was significantly lower amongst mothers aged 16–25 years than older mothers [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.41, 0.78], those living in non-owner occupied accommodation than in owner occupied accommodation (AOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38, 0.73) and those living in more disadvantaged areas (most versus least disadvantaged quintiles AOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30, 0.82). Conclusions Studies recruiting disadvantaged populations should measure and report attrition by socioeconomic factors to enable determination of the extent of attrition bias and estimation of its potential impact on findings. Where differential attrition is anticipated, consideration should be given to over-sampling during recruitment and targeted and more intensive strategies of participant retention in these sub-groups. In transient populations collection of multiple sources of contact information at recruitment and throughout the study may aid retention

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, sex, 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, 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, 2.47; PAF 20%); what to do or not do when parents are cooking (AOR 1.95, 95%CI 1.33, 2.85; PAF 26%); and about hot things in the kitchen (AOR 1.89, 95%CI 1.30, 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

Poison prevention practices and medically attended poisoning in young children: multicentre case-control study

Introduction Childhood poisonings are common, placing a substantial burden on health services. Case-control studies have found inconsistent evidence about modifiable risk factors for poisonings amongst 0-4 year olds. This study quantifies associations between poison prevention practices and medically attended poisonings in 0-4 year olds. Methods Multicentre case-control study conducted at hospitals, minor injury units and family practices from four study centres in England between 2010 and 2013. Participants comprised 567 children presenting with unintentional poisoning occurring at home, and 2320 community control participants matched on age, sex, date of event and study centre. Parents/caregivers provided data on safety practices, safety equipment use, home hazards and potential confounders, by means of self-completion questionnaires. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression. Results Compared with community controls, parents of poisoned children were significantly more likely not to store medicines out of reach (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.59; 95%CI, 1.21, 2.09; population attributable fraction (PAF) 15%), not to store medicines safely (locked or out of reach (AOR 1.83; 95%CI 1.38, 2.42; PAF 16%) and not to have put all medicines (AOR 2.11; 95%CI 1.54, 2.90; PAF 20%) or household products (AOR 1.79, 95%CI 1.29, 2.48; PAF 11%) away immediately after use. Conclusions Not storing medicines out of reach or locked away and not putting medicines and household products away immediately after use increased the odds of secondary care attended poisonings in 0-4 year olds. If associations are causal, implementing these poison prevention practices could each prevent between 11% and 20% of poisonings

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

Keeping children safe: a multicentre programme of research to increase the evidence base for preventing unintentional injuries in the home in the under-fives

Background: Unintentional injuries among 0- to 4-year-olds are a major public health problem incurring substantial NHS, individual and societal costs. However, evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions is lacking. Aim: To increase the evidence base for thermal injury, falls and poisoning prevention for the under-fives. Methods: Six work streams comprising five multicentre case–control studies assessing risk and protective factors, a study measuring quality of life and injury costs, national surveys of children’s centres, interviews with children’s centre staff and parents, a systematic review of barriers to, and facilitators of, prevention and systematic overviews, meta-analyses and decision analyses of home safety interventions. Evidence from these studies informed the design of an injury prevention briefing (IPB) for children’s centres for preventing fire-related injuries and implementation support (training and facilitation). This was evaluated by a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial comparing IPB and support (IPB+), IPB only (no support) and usual care. The primary outcome was parent-reported possession of a fire escape plan. Evidence from all work streams subsequently informed the design of an IPB for preventing thermal injuries, falls and poisoning. Results: Modifiable risk factors for falls, poisoning and scalds were found. Most injured children and their families incurred small to moderate health-care and non-health-care costs, with a few incurring more substantial costs. Meta-analyses and decision analyses found that home safety interventions increased the use of smoke alarms and stair gates, promoted safe hot tap water temperatures, fire escape planning and storage of medicines and household products, and reduced baby walker use. Generally, more intensive interventions were the most effective, but these were not always the most cost-effective interventions. Children’s centre and parental barriers to, and facilitators of, injury prevention were identified. Children’s centres were interested in preventing injuries, and believed that they could prevent them, but few had an evidence-based strategic approach and they needed support to develop this. The IPB was implemented by children’s centres in both intervention arms, with greater implementation in the IPB+ arm. Compared with usual care, more IPB+ arm families received advice on key safety messages, and more families in each intervention arm attended fire safety sessions. The intervention did not increase the prevalence of fire escape plans [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) IPB only vs. usual care 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.49; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.41, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.20] but did increase the proportion of families reporting more fire escape behaviours (AOR IPB only vs. usual care 2.56, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.76; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.78, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.15). IPB-only families were less likely to report match play by children (AOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.94) and reported more bedtime fire safety routines (AOR for a 1-unit increase in the number of routines 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.31) than usual-care families. The IPB-only intervention was less costly and marginally more effective than usual care. The IPB+ intervention was more costly and marginally more effective than usual care. Limitations: Our case–control studies demonstrate associations between modifiable risk factors and injuries but not causality. Some injury cost estimates are imprecise because of small numbers. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were limited by the quality of the included studies, the small numbers of studies reporting outcomes and significant heterogeneity, partly explained by differences in interventions. Network meta-analysis (NMA) categorised interventions more finely, but some variation remained. Decision analyses are likely to underestimate cost-effectiveness for a number of reasons. IPB implementation varied between children’s centres. Greater implementation may have resulted in changes in more fire safety behaviours. Conclusions: Our studies provide new evidence about the effectiveness of, as well as economic evaluation of, home safety interventions. Evidence-based resources for preventing thermal injuries, falls and scalds were developed. Providing such resources to children’s centres increases their injury prevention activity and some parental safety behaviours. Future work: Further randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses and NMAs are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home safety interventions. Further work is required to measure NHS, family and societal costs and utility decrements for childhood home injuries and to evaluate complex multicomponent interventions such as home safety schemes using a single analytical model. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65067450 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01452191. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

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

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

Contemporary hazards in the home: Keeping children safe from thermal injuries

Objective: To explore the knowledge and reported thermal injury prevention practices among parents of children aged 0-4 years in disadvantaged areas. Methods: Parents of pre-school children in Children's Centres in four study areas in England (Nottingham, Newcastle, Norwich and Bristol) were interviewed using a structured schedule. Interviews covered smoke alarms, bedtime routines, fire escape plans, other thermal prevention practices and parental knowledge of first aid. Results: Of the 200 respondents, most reported ownership of at least one smoke alarm (n=191, 96%), of which 95% were working. Half reported a fire prevention bedtime routine (n=105, 53%) or fire escape plan (n=81, 42%). Most parents had matches or lighters in the home (n=159, 80%), some stored where children under 5 years of age could reach them (n=30, 19%). There was a high prevalence of irons (n=188, 94%) and hair straighteners (n=140, 70%). A third of both devices were used daily. Just 17 (12%) parents reported leaving hair straighteners, when hot but not in use, in a heatproof bag. Knowledge of correct initial first aid for a small burn was good (n=165, 83%), but parents reported other potentially harmful actions, for example, applying ointment (n=44, 22%). Conclusions: Most families report at least one working smoke alarm, but many do not have fire escape plans or fire prevention bedtime routines. A number of reported practices could compromise child safety, such as storage of matches or lighters and leaving hair straighteners to cool unprotected. Reappraisal of health promotion messages, in light of new household consumables, is necessary