OBJECTIVE: To assess (a) the effect of home safety education and the provision of safety equipment on poison-prevention practices and poisoning rates, and (b) whether the effect of interventions differs by social group. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, ASSIA, Psychinfo, Web of Science, plus other electronic sources and hand searching of conference abstracts and reference lists. Authors of included studies were asked to supply individual participant data. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies, with participants aged </=19 years, providing home safety education with or without free or subsidised safety equipment and reporting poison-prevention practices or poisoning incidents were included. Pooled odds ratios and pooled rate ratios were estimated, and meta-regression estimated intervention effects by child age, gender and social variables. RESULTS: Home safety interventions increased safe storage of medicines (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02) and cleaning products (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.17), the possession of syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.41), and having poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.84 to 7.33). There was a lack of evidence on poisoning rates (rate ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.36) and no consistent evidence that intervention effects differed by child age, gender or social group. CONCLUSIONS: Home safety education and the provision of safety equipment improve poison-prevention practices, but the impact on poisoning rates is unclear. Such interventions are unlikely to widen inequalities in childhood poisoning-prevention practices.
OBJECTIVE: To assess (a) the effect of home safety education and the provision of safety equipment on poison-prevention practices and poisoning rates, and (b) whether the effect of interventions differs by social group. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, ASSIA, Psychinfo, Web of Science, plus other electronic sources and hand searching of conference abstracts and reference lists. Authors of included studies were asked to supply individual participant data. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies, with participants aged </=19 years, providing home safety education with or without free or subsidised safety equipment and reporting poison-prevention practices or poisoning incidents were included. Pooled odds ratios and pooled rate ratios were estimated, and meta-regression estimated intervention effects by child age, gender and social variables. RESULTS: Home safety interventions increased safe storage of medicines (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02) and cleaning products (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.17), the possession of syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.41), and having poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.84 to 7.33). There was a lack of evidence on poisoning rates (rate ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.36) and no consistent evidence that intervention effects differed by child age, gender or social group. CONCLUSIONS: Home safety education and the provision of safety equipment improve poison-prevention practices, but the impact on poisoning rates is unclear. Such interventions are unlikely to widen inequalities in childhood poisoning-prevention practices.
Authors: Felix Achana; Alex J Sutton; Denise Kendrick; Mike Hayes; David R Jones; Stephanie J Hubbard; Nicola J Cooper Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 3.295