BackgroundChildhood unintentional injury represents an important global health problem. Most of these injuries occur at home, and many are preventable. The main aim of this study was to identify key facilitators and barriers for parents in keeping their children safe from unintentional injury within their homes. A further aim was to develop an understanding of parents’ perceptions of what might help them to implement injury prevention activities.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with sixty-four parents with a child aged less than five years at parent’s homes. Interview data was transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was undertaken. This was a Multi-centre qualitative study conducted in four study centres in England (Nottingham, Bristol, Norwich and Newcastle).ResultsBarriers to injury prevention included parents’ not anticipating injury risks nor the consequences of some risk-taking behaviours, a perception that some injuries were an inevitable part of child development, interrupted supervision due to distractions, maternal fatigue and the presence of older siblings, difficulties in adapting homes, unreliability and cost of safety equipment and provision of safety information later than needed in relation to child age and development. Facilitators for injury prevention included parental supervision and teaching children about injury risks. This included parents’ allowing children to learn about injury risks through controlled risk taking, using “safety rules” and supervising children to ensure that safety rules were adhered to. Adapting the home by installing safety equipment or removing hazards were also key facilitators. Some parents felt that learning about injury events through other parents’ experiences may help parents anticipate injury risks.ConclusionsThere are a range of barriers to, and facilitators for parents undertaking injury prevention that would be addressable during the design of home safety interventions. Addressing these in future studies may increase the effectiveness of interventions.

BackgroundThere is significant morbidity and mortality caused by the complications of osteoporosis, for which ageing is the greatest epidemiological risk factor. Preventive medications to delay osteoporosis are available, but little is known about motivators to adhere to these in the context of a symptomless condition with evidence based on screening results.AimTo describe key perceptions that influence older women's adherence and persistence with prescribed medication when identified to be at a higher than average risk of fracture.Design of StudyA longitudinal qualitative study embedded within a multi-centre trial exploring the effectiveness of screening for prevention of fractures.SettingPrimary care, Norfolk. United KingdomMethodsThirty older women aged 70–85 years of age who were offered preventive medication for osteoporosis and agreed to undertake two interviews at 6 and 24 months post-first prescription.ResultsThere were no overall predictors of adherence which varied markedly over time. Participants' perceptions and motivations to persist with medication were influenced by six core themes: understanding adherence and non-adherence, motivations and self-care, appraising and prioritising risk, anticipating and managing side effects, problems of understanding, and decision making around medication. Those engaged with supportive professionals could better tolerate and overcome barriers such as side-effects.ConclusionsMany issues are raised following screening in a cohort of women who have not previously sought advice about their bone health. Adherence to preventive medication for osteoporosis is complex and multifaceted. Individual participant understanding, choice, risk and perceived need all interact to produce unpredictable patterns of usage and acceptability. There are clear implications for practice and health professionals should not assume adherence in any older women prescribed medication for the prevention of osteoporosis. The beliefs and motivations of participants and their healthcare providers regarding the need to establish acceptable medication regimes is key to promoting and sustaining adherence.

IntroductionReducing smoking during pregnancy is a public health priority. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is offered routinely to pregnant women who smoke in the United Kingdom. However, evidence of treatment efficacy in this population is weak, most likely due to poor adherence. Guided by the Necessity‐Concerns Framework, we conducted a qualitative study to better understand pregnant women’s perceived needs and concerns regarding NRT use, with consideration of combination NRT.MethodsSemi‐structured interviews were conducted by telephone with 18 pregnant or recently pregnant women in England and Wales, purposively sampled for different NRT‐related experiences. Participants were recruited online via Facebook adverts and through a Stop Smoking Service. A hybrid approach of deductive and inductive thematic coding was used for analysis.ResultsFindings were organized around three themes: 1) the role of motivation to stop smoking; 2) necessity beliefs about using NRT; and 3) concerns about NRT. Some women reported fluctuating motivation for stopping smoking which undermined their NRT use. Others used NRT to cut down the number of cigarettes they smoked. Reasons for low NRT necessity beliefs included a preference for quitting unassisted, low or unrealistic expectations of efficacy, and overconfidence in achieving cessation (necessity testing). Concerns included safety, particularly around increased nicotine exposure with combination NRT, addictiveness, side effects, and capability to use.ConclusionPregnant women have multiple necessity beliefs and concerns that influence their use of NRT. Targeting these, alongside increasing and maintaining motivation to quit smoking, will likely help optimize NRT use in pregnancy and improve quit rates.

No abstract

BackgroundUnintentional injuries among 0- to 4-year-olds are a major public health problem incurring substantial NHS, individual and societal costs. However, evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions is lacking.AimTo increase the evidence base for thermal injury, falls and poisoning prevention for the under-fives.MethodsSix work streams comprising five multicentre case–control studies assessing risk and protective factors, a study measuring quality of life and injury costs, national surveys of children’s centres, interviews with children’s centre staff and parents, a systematic review of barriers to, and facilitators of, prevention and systematic overviews, meta-analyses and decision analyses of home safety interventions. Evidence from these studies informed the design of an injury prevention briefing (IPB) for children’s centres for preventing fire-related injuries and implementation support (training and facilitation). This was evaluated by a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial comparing IPB and support (IPB+), IPB only (no support) and usual care. The primary outcome was parent-reported possession of a fire escape plan. Evidence from all work streams subsequently informed the design of an IPB for preventing thermal injuries, falls and poisoning.ResultsModifiable risk factors for falls, poisoning and scalds were found. Most injured children and their families incurred small to moderate health-care and non-health-care costs, with a few incurring more substantial costs. Meta-analyses and decision analyses found that home safety interventions increased the use of smoke alarms and stair gates, promoted safe hot tap water temperatures, fire escape planning and storage of medicines and household products, and reduced baby walker use. Generally, more intensive interventions were the most effective, but these were not always the most cost-effective interventions. Children’s centre and parental barriers to, and facilitators of, injury prevention were identified. Children’s centres were interested in preventing injuries, and believed that they could prevent them, but few had an evidence-based strategic approach and they needed support to develop this. The IPB was implemented by children’s centres in both intervention arms, with greater implementation in the IPB+ arm. Compared with usual care, more IPB+ arm families received advice on key safety messages, and more families in each intervention arm attended fire safety sessions. The intervention did not increase the prevalence of fire escape plans [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) IPB only vs. usual care 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.49; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.41, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.20] but did increase the proportion of families reporting more fire escape behaviours (AOR IPB only vs. usual care 2.56, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.76; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.78, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.15). IPB-only families were less likely to report match play by children (AOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.94) and reported more bedtime fire safety routines (AOR for a 1-unit increase in the number of routines 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.31) than usual-care families. The IPB-only intervention was less costly and marginally more effective than usual care. The IPB+ intervention was more costly and marginally more effective than usual care.LimitationsOur case–control studies demonstrate associations between modifiable risk factors and injuries but not causality. Some injury cost estimates are imprecise because of small numbers. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were limited by the quality of the included studies, the small numbers of studies reporting outcomes and significant heterogeneity, partly explained by differences in interventions. Network meta-analysis (NMA) categorised interventions more finely, but some variation remained. Decision analyses are likely to underestimate cost-effectiveness for a number of reasons. IPB implementation varied between children’s centres. Greater implementation may have resulted in changes in more fire safety behaviours.ConclusionsOur studies provide new evidence about the effectiveness of, as well as economic evaluation of, home safety interventions. Evidence-based resources for preventing thermal injuries, falls and scalds were developed. Providing such resources to children’s centres increases their injury prevention activity and some parental safety behaviours.Future workFurther randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses and NMAs are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home safety interventions. Further work is required to measure NHS, family and societal costs and utility decrements for childhood home injuries and to evaluate complex multicomponent interventions such as home safety schemes using a single analytical model.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN65067450 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01452191.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.