• D Kendrick, S Smith, A J Sutton, C Mulvaney, M Watson, C Coupland, and A Mason-Jones.
• Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, UK.
• Inj. Prev. 2009 Jun 1;15(3):197-204.

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether home safety education and safety equipment provision increases thermal injury prevention practices or reduces thermal injury rates and whether the effect of interventions differs by social group.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) evaluating home safety education with or without provision of free or discounted safety equipment provided to children or young people aged 0-19 years.Main Outcome Measurespossession of functional smoke alarm, fitted fireguard and fire extinguisher; keeping hot drinks or food and keeping matches or lighters out of reach; having a safe hot water temperature and rate of medically attended thermal injuries.ResultsHome safety interventions were effective in increasing the proportion of families with a functional smoke alarm (odds ratio (OR) 1.83, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.74) and with a safe hot tap water temperature (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.80). There was some evidence they increased possession of fitted fireguards (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.94), but there was a lack of evidence that interventions reduced medically attended thermal injury rates (incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.56). There was no consistent evidence that the effectiveness of interventions varied by social group.ConclusionsHome safety education, especially with the provision of safety equipment, is effective in increasing some thermal injury prevention practices, but there is insufficient evidence to show whether this also reduces injury rates.

34 keywords...

hide…