• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

“步步领先”家庭安全计划预防5岁以下儿童受伤的成本效益分析

Cost-effectiveness of the 'Stay One Step Ahead' Home Safety programme for the prevention of injuries among children under 5 years.

作者信息

Jones Matthew, Orton Elizabeth, Taylor Michael James, Timblin Clare, Clarke Rachel, Watson Michael Craig, Hayes Mike, Patel Tina, Coupland Carol, Kendrick Denise

机构信息

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

Inj Prev. 2025 Jan 23;31(1):45-51. doi: 10.1136/ip-2024-045236.

DOI:10.1136/ip-2024-045236
PMID:39216985
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11874428/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Unintentional injuries are a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the under-5s, but undertaking home safety practices can reduce injury risk. Stay One Step Ahead (SOSA) is an evidence-based standardised home safety programme. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of SOSA versus usual care in Nottingham, UK.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective. SOSA activity data, injury occurrence and associated short-term healthcare costs were collected within a controlled before-and-after study from 2017 to 2020. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional home adopting three key safety practices (working smoke alarm, safe poisons storage and fitted stair gate). Secondary outcomes were ICERs per injury avoided and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.

RESULTS

SOSA costs £30 per child but reduces short-term healthcare expenditure by £42. SOSA increased the number of homes with three key safety practices by 0.02 per child, reduced injuries per child by 0.15 and gained 0.0036 QALYs per child. SOSA was dominant as it was cheaper and more effective than current practice. ICERs were -£590 per additional home deemed safe, -£77 per injury avoided and -£3225 per QALY gained. Focusing on healthcare expenditure alone, SOSA saved £1.39 for every pound spent.

CONCLUSIONS

SOSA is a cost-saving intervention. Commissioners should consider implementing SOSA.

摘要

背景

意外伤害是5岁以下儿童发病和死亡的常见原因,但采取家庭安全措施可降低受伤风险。“领先一步”(SOSA)是一项基于证据的标准化家庭安全计划。本研究评估了在英国诺丁汉,SOSA与常规护理相比的成本效益。

方法

从国民医疗服务体系和个人社会服务的角度进行成本效益分析。在2017年至2020年的一项对照前后研究中,收集了SOSA活动数据、伤害发生情况及相关短期医疗费用。主要结果是每增加一个采用三项关键安全措施(正常工作的烟雾报警器、安全储存毒药和安装楼梯门)的家庭的增量成本效益比(ICER)。次要结果是避免每起伤害的ICER和获得的质量调整生命年(QALY)。

结果

SOSA每个儿童花费30英镑,但可将短期医疗支出减少42英镑。SOSA使每个儿童拥有三项关键安全措施的家庭数量增加0.02,每个儿童受伤数量减少0.15,并使每个儿童获得0.0036个QALY。SOSA占主导地位,因为它比现行做法更便宜且更有效。每增加一个被视为安全的家庭,ICER为-590英镑;每避免一起伤害,ICER为-77英镑;每获得一个QALY,ICER为-3225英镑。仅关注医疗支出,SOSA每花费1英镑可节省1.39英镑。

结论

SOSA是一种节省成本的干预措施。决策者应考虑实施SOSA。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d3ce/11874428/8c9e6a9b705c/ip-31-1-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d3ce/11874428/8c9e6a9b705c/ip-31-1-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d3ce/11874428/8c9e6a9b705c/ip-31-1-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Cost-effectiveness of the 'Stay One Step Ahead' Home Safety programme for the prevention of injuries among children under 5 years.“步步领先”家庭安全计划预防5岁以下儿童受伤的成本效益分析
Inj Prev. 2025 Jan 23;31(1):45-51. doi: 10.1136/ip-2024-045236.
2
The feasibility of using a parenting programme for the prevention of unintentional home injuries in the under-fives: a cluster randomised controlled trial.使用育儿计划预防五岁以下儿童意外伤害的可行性:一项整群随机对照试验。
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Jan;18(3):1-184. doi: 10.3310/hta18030.
3
Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention (Review).家庭安全教育与提供预防伤害的安全设备(综述)
Evid Based Child Health. 2013 May;8(3):761-939. doi: 10.1002/ebch.1911.
4
Smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs: an economic evaluation.烟雾报警器赠送和安装计划:经济评估。
Am J Prev Med. 2012 Oct;43(4):385-91. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.06.021.
5
A decision analytic model to investigate the cost-effectiveness of poisoning prevention practices in households with young children.一个用于研究预防幼儿家庭中毒措施成本效益的决策分析模型。
BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 3;15:705. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3334-0.
6
School-based education programmes for the prevention of unintentional injuries in children and young people.针对儿童和青少年预防意外伤害的校本教育项目。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 27;12(12):CD010246. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010246.pub2.
7
Cost-benefit analysis of fall injuries prevented by a programme of home modifications: a cluster randomised controlled trial.一项通过家庭改造计划预防跌倒伤害的成本效益分析:一项整群随机对照试验。
Inj Prev. 2017 Feb;23(1):22-26. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041947. Epub 2016 Jun 16.
8
The effectiveness of a home visit to prevent childhood injury.家访预防儿童伤害的有效性。
Pediatrics. 2001 Aug;108(2):382-8. doi: 10.1542/peds.108.2.382.
9
Evaluation of the effectiveness, implementation and cost-effectiveness of the Stay One Step Ahead home safety promotion intervention for pre-school children: a study protocol.评价学前儿童“一步先停留”家庭安全促进干预的效果、实施情况和成本效益:研究方案。
Inj Prev. 2020 Dec;26(6):573-580. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043877. Epub 2020 Oct 16.
10
Preventing deaths and injuries from house fires: a cost-benefit analysis of a community-based smoke alarm installation programme.预防家庭火灾伤亡:基于社区的烟雾报警器安装计划的成本效益分析。
Inj Prev. 2018 Feb;24(1):12-18. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042247. Epub 2017 Feb 9.

本文引用的文献

1
Effectiveness of systematically delivered evidence-based home safety promotion to improve child home safety practices: a controlled before-and-after study.系统实施基于证据的家庭安全促进对改善儿童家庭安全行为的效果:一项对照前后研究。
Inj Prev. 2023 Jun;29(3):227-233. doi: 10.1136/ip-2022-044745. Epub 2023 Jan 31.
2
Evaluation of the effectiveness, implementation and cost-effectiveness of the Stay One Step Ahead home safety promotion intervention for pre-school children: a study protocol.评价学前儿童“一步先停留”家庭安全促进干预的效果、实施情况和成本效益:研究方案。
Inj Prev. 2020 Dec;26(6):573-580. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043877. Epub 2020 Oct 16.
3
Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children's centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial.
评估儿童中心防火与预防伤害简报的实施情况:整群随机对照试验。
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 24;12(3):e0172584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172584. eCollection 2017.
4
Poison prevention practices and medically attended poisoning in young children: multicentre case-control study.幼儿中毒预防措施与就医的中毒情况:多中心病例对照研究
Inj Prev. 2017 Apr;23(2):93-101. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041828. Epub 2016 Nov 4.
5
A decision analytic model to investigate the cost-effectiveness of poisoning prevention practices in households with young children.一个用于研究预防幼儿家庭中毒措施成本效益的决策分析模型。
BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 3;15:705. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3334-0.
6
The short-term cost of falls, poisonings and scalds occurring at home in children under 5 years old in England: multicentre longitudinal study.英国5岁以下儿童在家中发生跌倒、中毒和烫伤的短期成本:多中心纵向研究
Inj Prev. 2016 Oct;22(5):334-41. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041808. Epub 2016 Jan 29.
7
Risk and protective factors for falls on stairs in young children: multicentre case-control study.幼儿楼梯跌倒的风险与保护因素:多中心病例对照研究
Arch Dis Child. 2016 Oct;101(10):909-16. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308486. Epub 2015 Dec 10.
8
Economic Evaluation Enhances Public Health Decision Making.经济评估增强公共卫生决策。
Front Public Health. 2015 Jun 24;3:164. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00164. eCollection 2015.
9
Cost-effectiveness of interventions for increasing the possession of functioning smoke alarms in households with pre-school children: a modelling study.增加有学龄前儿童家庭中正常工作烟雾报警器拥有量的干预措施的成本效益:一项建模研究。
BMC Public Health. 2014 May 16;14:459. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-459.
10
Economic evaluation of smoke alarm distribution methods in Baltimore, Maryland.马里兰州巴尔的摩市烟雾报警器分发方法的经济评估。
Inj Prev. 2014 Aug;20(4):251-7. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2013-040885. Epub 2013 Oct 23.