• D Kendrick, S Smith, A Sutton, M Watson, C Coupland, C Mulvaney, and A Mason-Jones.
• Professor D Kendrick, Division of Primary Care, Floor 13, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. denise.kendrick@nottingham.ac.uk
• Arch. Dis. Child. 2008 Jul 1; 93 (7): 599-608.

ObjectiveTo 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 SourcesMedline, 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 MethodsRandomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies, with participants aged ResultsHome 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.ConclusionsHome 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.

18 keywords...

hide…