Advertisement

 

 

Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children’s centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children’s centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial.
Author Information (click to view)

Deave T, Hawkins A, Kumar A, Hayes M, Cooper N, Watson M, Ablewhite J, Coupland C, Sutton A, Majsak-Newman G, McDaid L, Goodenough T, Beckett K, McColl E, Reading R, Kendrick D,


Deave T, Hawkins A, Kumar A, Hayes M, Cooper N, Watson M, Ablewhite J, Coupland C, Sutton A, Majsak-Newman G, McDaid L, Goodenough T, Beckett K, McColl E, Reading R, Kendrick D, (click to view)

Deave T, Hawkins A, Kumar A, Hayes M, Cooper N, Watson M, Ablewhite J, Coupland C, Sutton A, Majsak-Newman G, McDaid L, Goodenough T, Beckett K, McColl E, Reading R, Kendrick D,

Advertisement
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

PloS one 2017 03 2412(3) e0172584 doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0172584
Abstract
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.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three + thirteen =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]