Objective-To summarize house fire injury risk factor data, using relative risk estimation as a uniform method of comparison. Methods-Residential fire risk factor studies were identified as follows: MEDLINE (1983 to March 1997) was searched using the keywords fire*/burn*, with etiology/cause*, prevention, epidemiology, and smoke detector* or alarm*. ERIC (1966 to March 1997) and PSYCLIT (1974 to June 1997) were searched by the above keywords, as well as safety, skills, education, and training. Other sources included: references of retrieved publications, review articles, and injury prevention books; Injury Prevention journal hand search; government documents; and internet sources. When not provided by the authors, relative risk (RR), odds ratio, and standardized mortality ratios were calculated, to enhance comparison between studies. Results-Fifteen relevant articles were retrieved, including two case-control studies. Non-modifiable risk factors included young age (RR 1.8-7.5), old age (RR 2.6-3.6), male gender (RR 1.4-2.9), nonwhite race (RR 1.3-15.0), low income (RR 3.4), disability (RR 2.5-6.5), and late night/ early morning occurrence (RR 4.1). Modifiable risk factors included place of residence (RR 2.1-4.2), type of residence (RR 1.7-10.5), smoking (RR 1.5 to 7.7), and alcohol use (RR 0.7-7.5). Mobile homes and homes with fewer safety features, such as a smoke detector or a telephone, presented a higher risk of fatal injury. Conclusions-Risk factor data should be used to assist in the development, targeting, and evaluation of preventive strategies. Development of a series of quantitative systematic reviews could synthesize existing data in areas such as house fire injury prevention. (Injury Prevention 1999;5:145-150)

Objectives-To document current bicycle helmet use in Winnipeg, Manitoba and nearby rural communities, and to identify target groups for a helmet promotion campaign. 9%). Helmet use increased linearly as mean neighbourhood income increased, with a nearly fourfold diVerence in use between the highest and lowest income neighbourhoods. Children less than 8 years old and adults had the highest, and teenagers the lowest, use. Significant predictive variables were identified separately by age category to inform targeted programming. Conclusions-We documented low helmet use in our region, emphasizing the need for a regional helmet promotion campaign as well as future helmet legislation. A marked urban-rural diVerence in helmet use that has not been previously reported was also identified. Target groups for a future campaign include adolescents, males, rural cyclists, and those in lower income neighbourhoods. (Injury Prevention 1999;5:183-188) Methods-Cyclist

Objective-To evaluate and summarize the house fire injury prevention literature. Other sources included references of retrieved publications, review articles, and books; Injury Prevention hand search; government documents; and internet sources. Sources relevant to residential fire injury prevention were selected, evaluated, and summarized. Results-Forty three publications were selected for review, including seven randomized controlled trials, nine quasiexperiments, two natural experiments, 21 prospective cohort studies, two cross sectional surveys, one case report, and one program evaluation. These studies examined the following types of interventions: school (9), preschool (1), and community based educational programs (5); fire response training programs for children (7), blind adolescents (2), and mentally retarded adults (5) and children (1); oYce based counseling (4); home inspection programs (3); smoke detector giveaway campaigns (5); and smoke detector legislation (1). Conclusions-This review of house fire prevention interventions underscores the importance of program evaluation. There is a need for more rigorous evaluation of educational programs, particularly those targeted at schools. An evidence based, coordinated approach to house fire injury prevention is critical, given current financial constraints and the potential for program overload for communities and schools. (Injury Prevention 1999;5:217-225) Methods-MEDLINE

BackgroundThe study was designed to determine if youth <16 years are at a greater risk of serious injuries related to all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use compared to older adolescents and adults.MethodsWe performed cross sectional study of children and adults presenting to pediatric and adult emergency departments between 1990 and 2009 in Canada. The primary exposure variable was age <16 years and the primary outcome measure was moderate to serious injury determined from physician report of type and severity of injury.ResultsAmong 5005 individuals with complete data, 58% were <16 years and 35% were admitted to hospital. The odds of a moderate to serious injury versus minor injury among ATV users <16 years of age was not different compared with those ≥16 years of age (OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.84, 1.06). After adjusting for era, helmet use, sex and driver status, youth <16 years were more likely to present with a head injury (aOR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.19–1.77) or fractures (aOR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.43–1.81), compared with those ≥16 years. Male participants (aOR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.06–1.38) and drivers (aOR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.12–1.51) were more likely to experience moderate or serious injuries than females and passengers. Helmet use was associated with significant protection from head injuries (aOR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.44–0.78).ConclusionsYouth under 16 years are at an increased risk of head injuries and fractures. For youth and adults presenting to emergency departments with an ATV-related injury, moderate to serious injuries associated with ATV use are more common among drivers and males. Helmet use protected against head injuries, suggesting minimum age limits for ATV use and helmet use are warranted.