Lara B McKenzie1,2,3, Kristin J Roberts1, Roxanne M Kaercher1, Christy L Collins4, R Dawn Comstock5, Soledad Fernandez6, Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul6, Marcel J Casavant2,7, Leslie Mihalov8. 1. Center for Injury Research and Policy, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 3. Division of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 4. OhioHealth Research & Innovations Institute, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 5. Dept. of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health and Dept. of Pediatrics, Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 6. Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 7. Central Ohio Poison Center, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 8. Emergency Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although non-fire-related carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is almost entirely preventable, over 400 people die and 20 000 people are injured each year in the USA from unintentional CO poisoning. Thus, there is a critical need for evidence-based interventions for preventing CO poisoning and increasing the proper use and installation of CO detectors. METHODS: A randomised, controlled trial (Project CODE, a Carbon Monoxide Detector Education intervention) with 2-week and 6-month follow-up home observations was conducted in 299 parents of childrenaged ≤18 years recruited in the emergency department of a level 1 paediatric trauma centre. The intervention group received an educational tool, a spiral-bound, laminated booklet that resembled a CO detector containing theory-based safety messages based on the precaution adoption process model, a plug-in CO detector and 9 V battery. The control group received a one page flyer on CO poisoning prevention. RESULTS: Although the difference was not statistically significant, mean CO knowledge score increased at a greater rate for the intervention group than the control group. Intervention group parents were more likely to exhibit 'safe' CO detector use than control group parents at the 2-week follow-up (RR: 2.75; 95% CI 2.06 to 3.69) and 6-month follow-up (RR: 2.78; 95% CI 2.06 to 3.76), after adjusting for self-reported CO detector use behaviour at enrolment and annual per capita income. CONCLUSIONS: An emergency department-delivered intervention containing a theory-based educational tool paired with a CO detector can be an effective method for increasing knowledge about CO poisoning, for prevention and for appropriate use of a CO detector. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00959478. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although non-fire-related carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is almost entirely preventable, over 400 people die and 20 000 people are injured each year in the USA from unintentional CO poisoning. Thus, there is a critical need for evidence-based interventions for preventing CO poisoning and increasing the proper use and installation of CO detectors. METHODS: A randomised, controlled trial (Project CODE, a Carbon Monoxide Detector Education intervention) with 2-week and 6-month follow-up home observations was conducted in 299 parents of children aged ≤18 years recruited in the emergency department of a level 1 paediatric trauma centre. The intervention group received an educational tool, a spiral-bound, laminated booklet that resembled a CO detector containing theory-based safety messages based on the precaution adoption process model, a plug-in CO detector and 9 V battery. The control group received a one page flyer on CO poisoning prevention. RESULTS: Although the difference was not statistically significant, mean CO knowledge score increased at a greater rate for the intervention group than the control group. Intervention group parents were more likely to exhibit 'safe' CO detector use than control group parents at the 2-week follow-up (RR: 2.75; 95% CI 2.06 to 3.69) and 6-month follow-up (RR: 2.78; 95% CI 2.06 to 3.76), after adjusting for self-reported CO detector use behaviour at enrolment and annual per capita income. CONCLUSIONS: An emergency department-delivered intervention containing a theory-based educational tool paired with a CO detector can be an effective method for increasing knowledge about CO poisoning, for prevention and for appropriate use of a CO detector. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00959478. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Andrea Carlson Gielen; Lara B McKenzie; Eileen M McDonald; Wendy C Shields; Mei-Cheng Wang; Yu-Jen Cheng; Nancy L Weaver; Allen R Walker Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Sean Williams; Adrian Brown; Robert Patton; Michael J Crawford; Robin Touquet Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2005-02-14 Impact factor: 4.492