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.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Home delivery of counselling and safety devices to prevent childinjuries 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.
Authors: M Sznajder; B Chevallier; G Leroux; C Bruneau; J Yacoubovitch; B Auvert Journal: Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 1.019
Authors: N Capon-Degardin; V Martinot-Duquennoy; V Lesage-Maillard; V de Broucker; P Patenotre; B Herbaux; P Pellerin; L Gottrand Journal: Ann Chir Plast Esthet Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 0.660
Authors: W J King; T P Klassen; J LeBlanc; A C Bernard-Bonnin; Y Robitaille; B Pham; D Coyle; M Tenenbein; I B Pless Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Samantha Turner; Geri Arthur; Ronan A Lyons; Alison L Weightman; Mala K Mann; Sarah J Jones; Ann John; Simon Lannon Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-02-16
Authors: Kun Zou; Persephone M Wynn; Philip Miller; Paul Hindmarch; Gosia Majsak-Newman; Ben Young; Mike Hayes; Denise Kendrick Journal: Burns Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: Samar Al-Hajj; Ediriweera Desapriya; Colleen Pawliuk; Len Garis; Ian Pike Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Aruna Chandran; Uzma Rahim Khan; Nukhba Zia; Asher Feroze; Sarah Stewart de Ramirez; Cheng-Ming Huang; Junaid A Razzak; Adnan A Hyder Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 3.390