A quantification of preventable unintentional childhood injury mortality in the United States

Abstract

Objective: To calculate the preventable fraction of unintentional childhood injury deaths in the United States. Design: Ecological study of cause specific unintentional childhood injury mortality rates across the 50 states (and the District of Columbia) of the United States (US) over the 10 year period 1989-98. Methods: The internet accessible database from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control was used in order to estimate unintentional childhood (0-14 years) injury mortality rates by external cause and time trends over the study period for each of the US states and for the four major geographical regions of the country. In the principal analysis, a calculation was made of the fraction and absolute number of unintentional childhood injury deaths that could have been prevented annually if the mortality rate in the region with the lowest rate also existed in the remaining three. In another scenario, the lowest external cause specific unintentional childhood injury mortality rates from the 50 US states and the District of Columbia were summed to provide the ''ideal'' lowest conceivable unintentional childhood injury mortality rate from all causes. Ecological correlations between unintentional childhood injury mortality rates from specified external causes, median income, and percent of the population with a college degree were made. Main outcome measures: Unintentional childhood injury mortality rates by cause. Results: Unintentional childhood injury mortality rate declined by 3.5% per year in the country as a whole. If every region of the US had experienced the same injury rate as the Northeast, then one third of all unintentional childhood injuries would not have occurred.More optimistic scenarios indicate that up to two thirds of all unintentional childhood injury deaths could be prevented. Across states, unintentional childhood injury mortality is strongly inversely related to median income. Conclusions: About one third of all unintentional childhood injury deaths in the US are preventable with the means and resources available in the Northeastern states. Among the relevant characteristics in the Northeast region, in comparison with other US regions, are the higher education level of parents, the lower gun ownership, the higher population density that implies shorter distances traveled by cars, a better developed emergency medical system, and the existence of several injury prevention programs.

Trends in childhood trauma mortality in the fast economically developing State of Qatar

“…Our study results are similar to those reported in Western countries regarding a signifi cantly decreasing trend in mortality rates due to total injuries and unintentional injuries among children of 0-17 years. [19] The injury mortality rates of males are twice as high as that of females worldwide. [19,20] In the United States, boys were more commonly injured, [21] as we found in this study with a male to female death ratio of 3.4:1 for all types of injuries leading to death.…”

Accidents resulting in disability in vulnerable populations and their consequences: A study of vulnerable worker groups in South Korea

“…Nevertheless, the risk groups and risk settings for all kinds of accidents are the main factors that influence an increase in socioeconomic loss and also a decrease in the quality of human resources [16,17]. Therefore, an increase in active governmental intervention is needed to ensure accident prevention.…”

Accidentsde la vie courante et mortalité

“…Si le taux standardisé global est de 27,9/100 000 en France, on constate une mortalité significativement supérieure à la moyenne dans quatre régions (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Franche-Comté, Bretagne et Auvergne), et à l'opposé significativement plus faible en Ile-deFrance, Aquitaine et Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur. Faut-il rapprocher ces faits des études sociologiques faites aux États-Unis montrant que la fréquence des accidents est plus faible dans la région nord-est, où le niveau d'instruction des parents est plus élevé [3] ?…”