A randomised safety promotion intervention trial among low-income families with toddlers
BACKGROUND: Toddler-aged children are vulnerable to unintentional injuries, especially those in low-income families.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of an intervention grounded in social cognitive theory (SCT) on the reduction of home safety problems among low-income families with toddlers.
METHODS: 277 low-income mother-toddler dyads were randomised into a safety promotion intervention (n=91) or an attention-control group (n=186). Mothers in the safety promotion intervention group received an eight-session, group-delivered safety intervention targeting fire prevention, fall prevention, poison control and car seat use, through health education, goal-setting and social support. Data collectors observed participants' homes and completed a nine-item checklist of home safety problems at study enrolment (baseline), 6 and 12 months after baseline. A total score was summed, with high scores indicating more problems. Linear mixed models compared the changes over time in home safety problems between intervention and control groups.
RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis indicated that the safety promotion intervention group significantly reduced safety problems to a greater degree than the attention-control group at the 12-month follow-up (between-group difference in change over time β=-0.54, 95% CI -0.05 to -1.03, p=0.035), with no significant differences at the 6-month follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: A safety promotion intervention built on principles of SCT has the potential to promote toddlers' home safety environment. Future studies should examine additional strategies to determine whether better penetration/compliance can produce more clinically important improvement in home safety practices.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02615158; post-results.
Wang, Y., Gielen, A. C., Magder, L. S., Hager, E. R., & Black, M. M. (2018). A randomised safety promotion intervention trial among low-income families with toddlers. Injury Prevention, 24(1), 41-47. DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042178