Falavigna Asdrubal, Medeiros Gregory Saraiva, Canabarro Carolina Travi, Barazzetti Daniel Ongaratto, Marcon Grasiela, Carneiro Monteiro Gabriela Massaro, Bossardi Júlia Bertholdo, da Silva Pedro Guarise, Teles Alisson Roberto, Velho Maíra Cristina, Ferrari Priscila
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Caxias do Sul;
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014 Jul;14(1):94-100. doi: 10.3171/2014.3.PEDS13295. Epub 2014 Apr 25.
OBJECT.: A previous study published by the authors showed that a single intervention could not change the baseline attitudes toward neurotrauma prevention. The present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of multiple interventions in modifying knowledge and attitudes for the prevention of neurotrauma in Brazilian preteens and adolescents.
In a randomized controlled trial, fifth-year primary school (PS) and second-year high school (HS) students were divided into a control and 2 intervention (single/multiple) groups. The study was conducted in the following 8 stages: T1, questionnaire to measure baseline characteristics; T2, lecture on trauma prevention; T3, reapplying the questionnaire used in T1; T4, Traffic Department intervention; T5, a play about trauma and its consequences; T6, Fire Department intervention; T7, Emergency Medical Service intervention; and T8, reapplying the questionnaire used in T1 and T3. Positive answers were considered those affirming the use of safety devices "always or sometimes" and negative as "never" using safety devices.
The sample consisted of 535 students. Regarding attitudes, students in all groups at any stage of measurement showed protective behavior more than 95% of the time about seat belt use. There were only differences between attitudes in PS and HS students on T8 assessment concerning the use of safety equipment on bikes in the multiple-intervention group and concerning the use of safety equipment on skateboards and rollerblades in single- and multiple-intervention groups. These differences were caused mainly by the reduction in positive answers by the HS group, rather than by the increase in positive or protective answers by the PS group. However, there was no difference when the control and intervention groups were compared, independent of the attitudes or the student groups studied. The most important reason for not using protective devices was the belief that they would not get hurt.
Multiple and different types of educational interventions, such as lectures, scenes from plays about trauma and its consequences, traffic and fire department intervention, and medical emergency intervention directed to preteens and adolescents from public and private schools did not modify most students' attitudes toward injury prevention. Clinical trial registration no: U1111-1121-0192 (National System of Ethics and Research in Brazil).
目的：作者之前发表的一项研究表明，单一干预无法改变对神经创伤预防的基线态度。本研究旨在评估多种干预措施在改变巴西青少年预防神经创伤的知识和态度方面的有效性。
在一项随机对照试验中，小学五年级（PS）和高中二年级（HS）学生被分为对照组和两个干预组（单一/多种）。研究按以下8个阶段进行：T1，测量基线特征的问卷；T2，创伤预防讲座；T3，重新应用T1中使用的问卷；T4，交通部门干预；T5，一场关于创伤及其后果的戏剧；T6，消防部门干预；T7，紧急医疗服务干预；T8，重新应用T1和T3中使用的问卷。肯定回答被视为那些肯定“总是或有时”使用安全装置的回答，否定回答为“从不”使用安全装置的回答。
样本包括535名学生。关于态度，在任何测量阶段，所有组的学生在使用安全带方面超过95%的时间表现出保护行为。在T8评估中，PS和HS学生在多种干预组中关于自行车安全设备使用以及单一和多种干预组中关于滑板和轮滑鞋安全设备使用的态度上仅存在差异。这些差异主要是由HS组肯定回答的减少引起的，而不是由PS组肯定或保护性回答的增加引起的。然而，比较对照组和干预组时没有差异，无论所研究的态度或学生群体如何。不使用保护装置的最重要原因是认为自己不会受伤。
针对公立和私立学校的青少年进行的多种不同类型的教育干预，如讲座、关于创伤及其后果的戏剧场景、交通和消防部门干预以及医疗紧急干预，并没有改变大多数学生对伤害预防的态度。临床试验注册号：U1111 - 1121 - 0192（巴西国家伦理与研究系统）。
