Sznajder M, Janvrin M P, Albonico V, Bonnin M H, Baudier F, Chevallier B
Service de pédiatrie, hôpital Ambroise-Paré, AP-HP, 9, avenue Charles-de-Gaulle, 92100 Boulogne, France.
Arch Pediatr. 2003 Jun;10(6):510-6. doi: 10.1016/s0929-693x(03)00145-3.
The home delivery of counseling and devices intended to prevent child injuries could help parents to adopt safe behavior more efficiently. The aim of the present study was to adapt and test in France a safety kit designed and used in Quebec (Canada). The intervention program (kit delivery and counseling) was assessed by measuring 6 to 8 weeks after a first home visit the percentage of safety changes adopted by the families included in the survey, compared with the pre-intervention situation; and by evaluating the satisfaction of families with their participation in the survey, and the satisfaction of nurses with the use of this new tool.
One hundred families from 4 towns in the Hauts-de-Seine department in the Paris suburbs (Boulogne, Chaville, Sèvres, Ville d'Avray) were selected by the social services for home visits by nurses or doctors, when their child reached the age of 6 to 9 months. Selection criteria were usually primipara, medical problem, psychological and/or socio-economic difficulties. During the first visit, 49 families (group 1) (1 family lost for follow-up) received the usual informative and preventive counseling, and a kit including preventive devices and pamphlets about indoor injuries and ways of avoiding them. The other 50 families (group 2) received counseling but not the kit. Between 6 and 8 weeks later, a second home visit was paid to all selected families.
Between the first and the second visits, the percentage of safety improvement was significantly higher in group 1 (with the kit) than in group 2 (without the kit). This improvement mainly related to the risk of fall (P < 0.02), fire and burns (P < 0.001), poisoning (P < 0.01) and suffocation (P < 0.001). When the analysis was focused on safety improvement related to devices provided in the kit, the difference between the 2 groups was significant: 67.8% of safety improvement in group 1 vs 38.1% in group 2 (P < 0.001). The relative risk (RR) was 1,78 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1,18-2,68). Even for items not related to the devices provided, the difference remained significant: 48.6% in group 1 vs 28.8% in group 2 (P < 0.001); RR =1,31 (95% CI: 1,23-1,40). The perceived usefulness of the kit was discussed in a focus group with all nurses and doctors. On the whole, the judgment was very positive, mainly because the kit facilitated the introduction of the notion of accident prevention in the discussion at home.
As in the canadian survey, our results indicate that routine home visits by the social services offer a good opportunity to introduce the subject of child injury prevention. Free delivery of prevention kit and simple counseling allow often deprived families to modify their behavior and to arrange their apartments so as to reduce risks.
