Comparison of Intentional and Unintentional Injuries Among Chinese Children and Adolescents

Abstract

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.

Alcohol and the Risk of Injury

“…Categorizing injuries according to intention is commonplace in the literature and assumed to have utility for injury management and prevention. For instance, prevention approaches to intentional injuries often focus on characteristics of individuals and their behaviours, while unintentional prevention initiatives are more often concerned with how people, objects and environments interact [ 36 ]. It is nevertheless worth noting that some have questioned whether categorisation limits collaboration and advancement of prevention efforts, as the underlying motivations of individuals are not always clear-cut (e.g., some burns are intentional, as are some road injuries), and groups share many similar characteristics, including effective prevention approaches (see Section 4 on policy and interventions below) [ 37 ].…”

Epidemiology of Knife Injuries at Ain Shams University Hospital Emergency Department from 2018 to 2019: A Cross-Sectional Study

“… 17 , 19–21 Most of our KRI cases were reported to be accidental, similar to the results of the previous study in China by Yin et al, who showed that 95.1% of the reported injuries were unintentional. 22 However, these results were much higher, compared with those of a comparable study in the UK, where only 52% of the KRIs were unintentional. 4 This difference may have been secondary to the different knife carrying habits and the marked increase in knife-related crimes in the UK.…”

Cumulative effect of risk and protective factors on unintentional injury for Chinese rural children: a nested case-control study

“…Each singular risk/protective categorical is accomplished by a statistical criterion (e.g. upper quartile of risk exposure = 1; all others = 0) and then summed together to form the risk/protective factors index [9,12,27,28]. The risk factor index (RFI) was computed by adding on 3 risk measures: SDQ ≥ 22 (1 point), IBC ≥ 17 (1 point), and PRH ≥ 18 (1 point).…”

“…In China, childhood unintentional injuries are more prominent in rural areas. The unintentional injury risk of death in rural areas was approximately 1.95 times that compare to urban areas of China [8,9]. In Chinese rural areas, there is a special group called left-behind children whose parents have left the hometown for work in the urban while their children stay with their grandparents in rural hometown.…”