Background: The patterns and risk factors of intentional injuries compared to unintentional injuries among Chinese children and adolescents have not been examined in depth. This work comprehensively describes patterns of intentional injuries in China, for which little information has been previously published. Methods: All cases involving individuals 0-17 years old registered at emergency rooms and outpatient clinics were examined using data submitted to the National Injury Surveillance System from 2006 through 2017. A logistic regression model was performed to explore the risk factors related to intentional injuries compared to unintentional injuries. Results: A total of 81,459 (95.1%) unintentional injuries, 4,218 (4.9%) intentional injuries (4,013 violent attacks and 205 self-mutilation=suicide) cases were identified. Blunt injuries accounted for 59.4% of violent attacks, while cuts and poisoning accounted for 37.1% and 23.4% of injuries involving self-mutilation=suicide, respectively. For unintentional injuries, falls (50.4%) ranked first. Additional risk factors for intentional injuries included being male (odds ratio [OR] 1.6), coming from rural areas (OR 1.9), being staff or workers (OR 2.2), and being a student (OR 1.8). As the age of the patients increased, so did the risk of intentional injuries (OR 5.0 in the 15-17 age group). Intentional injuries were more likely to occur at 00:00-03:00 am (OR 2.0). Conclusions: Intentional injuries affected more males, rural and older children, school students, and staff or workers. The mechanisms and occurrence times differed according to age group. Preventive measures should be taken to reduce the dropout of rural students, strengthen the school's violence prevention plan, and reduce self-harm.
Background The unclear mechanisms and severity of injuries in the injury pyramids for Chinese children and adolescents prevent the prioritization of interventions. This study aimed to describe the injury mechanisms and injury pyramids in this population to provide a priority for injury prevention strategies. Methods Death, hospitalization, and outpatient/emergency department visit data from patients aged 0 ~ 17 years with injuries were obtained from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, in Zhuhai City, China. The injury mechanism ratios were calculated, and the injury pyramid ratios were drawn in proportion using injury mortality and the incidence of both injury hospitalizations and outpatient/emergency department injury visits. Results The top three mechanisms for injuries in children and adolescents treated in outpatient/emergency departments were falls (52.02%), animal bites (14.57%), and blunt injuries (10.60%). The top three mechanisms for injury hospitalizations were falls (37.33%), road traffic injuries (17.87%), and fire/burns (14.29%), while the top three mechanisms for injury deaths were drowning (32.91%), road traffic injuries (20.25%) and falls (13.92%). The incidence rate of outpatient/emergency department injury visits for children and adolescents was 11,210.87/100,000; the incidence rate of injury hospitalization was 627.09/100,000, and the injury death rate was 10.70/100,000. For each injury death, there were 59 injury hospitalizations and 1048 outpatient/emergency injury visits. Conclusions The injury mechanisms were different for injury-related outpatient/emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths among children and adolescents. The injury mechanisms by sex at different stages of child development, and interventions should be formulated based on this finding. The ratios of the injury pyramids varied by age, sex, region, and injury mechanisms; minor nonfatal injuries were more common in children and adolescents. The differences in the severity and extent of the injuries suggested that injury interventions in children and adolescents still have a long way to go.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.