Child injury: Does home matter?

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between home risk and hospital treated injury in Australian children up to five years old. Women with children between two and four years of age enrolled in the Data from 562 households relating to 566 child participants were included. We found an inverse relationship between home risk and child injury, with children living in homes with the least injury risk (based on the absence of hazardous structural features of the home and safe practices reported) having 1.90 times the injury rate of children living in high risk homes (95% CI 1. 15-3.14). Whilst this appears counter-intuitive, families in the lowest risk homes were more likely to be socio-economically disadvantaged than families in the highest risk homes (more sole parents, lower maternal education levels, younger maternal age and lower income). After adjusting for demographic and socio-economic factors, the relationship between home risk and injury was no longer significant (p>0.05).Our findings suggest that children in socio-economically deprived families have higher rates of injury, despite living in a physical environment that contains substantially fewer injury risks than their less deprived counterparts. Although measures to reduce child injury risk through the modification of the physical environment remain an important part of the injury prevention approach, our study findings support continued efforts to implement societal-wide, long term policy and practice changes to address the socioeconomic differentials in child health outcomes.

Assessment of home hazards for non-fatal childhood injuries in rural Nepal: a community survey

“…In contrast, studies from Australia,38 Egypt31 and the UK39 did not show positive relationships between numbers of hazards and numbers of injuries, once confounding factors were adjusted for. The reasons might be that the children in these countries were less likely to be exposed to the hazards or the potential impact of hazards to the children were moderated or reduced.…”

<p>Incidence, Risk and Protective Factors for Unintentional, Nonfatal, Fall-Related Injuries at Home: A Community-Based Household Survey from Ujjain, India</p>

“…Unintentional childhood injuries in and around home are a major public health problem and the second leading cause of death due to injuries after road traffic accidents. [1][2][3][4][5] However, most of these injuries are preventable. [6][7][8] Such injuries have a major impact on the education, family relationship, and emotional and psychological well-being of the child and cause economic and social burden on the families; therefore, preventing these injuries is paramount.…”

“…4,6,7 Childhood unintentional falls are associated with various factors such as age; sex; geographical area; child development; parental literacy; overcrowding at home; home environment including unsafe building designs such as stairs, windows, and roofs without safety grills; unsafe storage of potentially hazardous substances such as kerosene and medicine; unsafe kitchen with access to stove and knives; and insufficient household lighting. [2][3][4]10,11 Despite a relatively high burden of injuries and falls, with 92% of all Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost due to falls, policy-makers in LMICs including India have considered injuries and falls as low priority. 4 Furthermore, population-based studies on this topic are lacking due to poorly maintained death registers, inappropriate coding of causes of death, lack of standard definitions of home accidental mortality and morbidity, and lack of hospital-based injury surveillance.…”

Evaluation of a mobile safety center's impact on pediatric home safety knowledge and device use

“…Identically colored pairs of stars indicate significant differences between pairs Items in the childproofing kit (outlet covers, doorknob covers, cabinet latches) are listed separately than those not in the kit (smoke detector, gun lock) to reflect the usage differential of the individual items the MSC was successful in reaching lower-SES communities. This is particularly crucial given the association between low SES and higher rates of pediatric injury (Bishai et al, 2002;Faelker et al, 2000;Pomerantz et al, 2001;Durkin et al, 1994;Yuma-Guerrero et al, 2018;Cubbin & Smith, 2002;Fallat et al, 2006;Osborne et al, 2016;Gielen et al, 2012). We suggest our success in contacting lower-SES populations was largely due to our ability to bring the MSC to community events, thus leveraging the mobile capability of the MSC to primarily focus on the most at-risk population.…”

“…This issue is particularly salient for families of lower socioeconomic status (SES), who may have inflexible job scheduling and limited access to transportation. The accessibility barrier is further compounded by the inverse relationship between SES and rates of unintentional pediatric injury (Bishai et al, 2002;Faelker et al, 2000;Pomerantz et al, 2001;Durkin et al, 1994;Yuma-Guerrero et al, 2018;Cubbin & Smith, 2002;Fallat et al, 2006;Osborne et al, 2016;Gielen et al, 2012). To address the heightened risk of injury among low-SES families, some safety centers have created mobile safety centers (MSCs).…”