Full text is available at the source.
Abstract
Ninety-eight studies involving 2,605,044 participants were analyzed regarding home safety interventions for children.
- Home safety interventions may reduce injury rates, particularly when delivered in the home.
- Interventions not providing safety equipment could be associated with greater reductions in injury rates.
- Families participating in home safety interventions were more likely to adopt safety practices, such as having safe hot tap water temperatures and functional smoke alarms.
- Providing free, low cost, or discounted safety equipment may improve certain safety practices more effectively than interventions without such provisions.
- There is no consistent evidence that the effectiveness of these interventions varies based on the risk level of the families involved.
Simplified
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.