Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention.

Home safety interventions most commonly provided as one-to-one, face-to-face education, especially with the provision of safety equipment, are effective in increasing a range of safety practices. There is some evidence that such interventions may reduce injury rates, particularly where interventions are provided at home. Conflicting findings regarding interventions providing safety equipment on safety practices and injury outcomes are likely to be explained by two large studies; one clinic-based study provided equipment but did not reduce injury rates and one school-based study did not provide equipment but did demonstrate a significant reduction in injury rates. There was no consistent evidence that home safety education, with or without the provision of safety equipment, was less effective in those participants at greater risk of injury. Further studies are still required to confirm these findings with respect to injury rates.

There is some evidence to support provision of first-aid training, particularly for children or young people, but many studies were judged to be at risk of bias. Conclusions cannot be drawn about which first-aid training courses or programmes are most effective or the age at which training can be most effectively provided. Few studies evaluated training in adult laypeople. High-quality studies are required assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of standardised first-aid training to inform policy development and provision of first-aid training.

This study is the first known to use network meta-analysis to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase the prevalence of functioning smoke alarms in households with children. The authors identified 24 primary studies from a systematic review of reviews and of more recently published primary studies, of which 23 (17 randomized controlled trials and 6 nonrandomized comparative studies) were included in 1 of the following 2 network meta-analyses: 1) possession of a functioning alarm: interventions that were more "intensive" (i.e., included components providing equipment (with or without fitting), home inspection, or both, in addition to education) generally were more effective. The intervention containing all of the aforementioned components was identified as being the most likely to be the most effective (probability (best) = 0.66), with an odds ratio versus usual care of 7.15 (95% credible interval: 2.40, 22.73); 2) type of battery-powered alarms: ionization alarms with lithium batteries were most likely to be the best type for increasing functioning possession (probability (best) = 0.69). Smoke alarm promotion programs should ensure they provide the combination of interventions most likely to be effective.

BackgroundThere is evidence from 2 previous meta-analyses that interventions to promote poison prevention behaviours are effective in increasing a range of poison prevention practices in households with children. The published meta-analyses compared any intervention against a “usual care or no intervention” which potentially limits the usefulness of the analysis to decision makers. We aim to use network meta-analysis to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions to increase prevalence of safe storage of i) Medicines only, ii) Other household products only, iii) Poisons (both medicines and non-medicines), iv) Poisonous plants; and v) Possession of poison control centre (PCC) telephone number in households with children.MethodsData on the effectiveness of poison prevention interventions was extracted from primary studies identified in 2 newly-undertaken systematic reviews. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using a random effects network meta-analysis model.Results28 of the 47 primary studies identified were included in the analysis. Compared to usual care intervention, the intervention with education and low cost/free equipment elements was most effective in promoting safe storage of medicines (odds ratio 2.51, 95% credible interval 1.01 to 6.00) while interventions with education, low cost/free equipment, home safety inspection and fitting components were most effective in promoting safe storage of other household products (2.52, 1.12 to 7.13), safe storage of poisons (11.10, 1.60 to 141.50) and possession of PCC number (38.82, 2.19 to 687.10). No one intervention package was more effective than the others in promoting safe storage of poisonous plants.ConclusionThe most effective interventions varied by poison prevention practice, but education alone was not the most effective intervention for any poison prevention practice. Commissioners and providers of poison prevention interventions should tailor the interventions they commission or provide to the poison prevention practices they wish to promote.HighlightsNetwork meta-analysis is useful for comparing multiple injury-prevention interventions.More intensive poison prevention interventions were more effective than education alone. Education and low cost/free equipment was most effective in promoting safe storage of medicines. Education, low cost/free equipment, home safety inspection and fitting was most effective in promoting safe storage of household products and poisons. Education, low cost/free equipment and home inspection were most effective in promoting possession of a poison control centre number.None of the intervention packages was more effective than the others in promoting safe storage of poisonous plants.