» Articles » PMID: 8555855

Does Home Visiting Prevent Childhood Injury? A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 1996 Jan 6
PMID 8555855
Citations 33
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To quantify the effectiveness of home visiting programmes in the prevention of child injury and child abuse.

Design: Systematic review of 11 randomised controlled trials of home visiting programmes. Pooled odds ratios were estimated as an inverse variance weighted average of the study specific odds ratios.

Setting: Randomised trials that were available by April 1995.

Subjects: The trials comprised 3433 participants.

Results: Eight trials examined the effectiveness of home visiting in the prevention of childhood injury. The pooled odds ratio for the eight trials was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.92). Four studies examined the effect of home visiting on injury in the first year of life. The pooled odds ratio was 0.98 (0.62 to 1.53). Nine trials examined the effect of home visiting on the occurrence of suspected abuse, reported abuse, or out of home placement for child abuse. Because of the potential for bias in outcome reporting in these studies, pooled effect estimates were not calculated.

Conclusions: Home visiting programmes have the potential to reduce significantly the rates of childhood injury. The problem of differential surveillance for child abuse between intervention and control groups precludes the use of reported abuse as a valid outcome measure in controlled trials of home visiting.

Citing Articles

Implementation fidelity of the 'Stay One Step Ahead' home safety intervention: a mixed-methods analysis.

Stewart S, Kendrick D, Watson M, Hayes M, Orton E Inj Prev. 2023; 29(4):340-346.

PMID: 37137688 PMC: 10423503. DOI: 10.1136/ip-2023-044855.


Preventing child maltreatment: Examination of an established statewide home-visiting program.

Chaiyachati B, Gaither J, Hughes M, Foley-Schain K, Leventhal J Child Abuse Negl. 2018; 79:476-484.

PMID: 29558714 PMC: 5894115. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.019.


Pilot Study of a Novel Partnership for Installing Smoke Alarms.

Omaki E, Frattaroli S, Shields W, McDonald E, Rizzutti N, Appy M Matern Child Health J. 2018; 22(7):1025-1032.

PMID: 29417368 DOI: 10.1007/s10995-018-2482-5.


Surveillance Bias in Child Maltreatment: A Tempest in a Teapot.

Drake B, Jonson-Reid M, Kim H Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017; 14(9).

PMID: 28846657 PMC: 5615508. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14090971.


Home injury risks to young children in Karachi, Pakistan: a pilot study.

Khan U, Chandran A, Zia N, Huang C, Stewart de Ramirez S, Feroze A Arch Dis Child. 2013; 98(11):881-6.

PMID: 23995075 PMC: 4316730. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-303907.


References
1.
HALL L . Effect of teaching on primiparas' perceptions of their newborn. Nurs Res. 1980; 29(5):317-22. View

2.
Siegel E, Bauman K, SCHAEFER E, Saunders M, Ingram D . Hospital and home support during infancy: impact on maternal attachment, child abuse and neglect, and health care utilization. Pediatrics. 1980; 66(2):183-90. View

3.
Stanwick R, Moffat M, Robitaille Y, Edmond A, Dok C . An evaluation of the routine postnatal public health nurse home visit. Can J Public Health. 1982; 73(3):200-5. View

4.
Lealman G, Haigh D, Phillips J, Stone J . Prediction and prevention of child abuse--an empty hope?. Lancet. 1983; 1(8339):1423-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(83)92367-x. View

5.
CURRIE A, Gehlbach S, Massion C, Thompson S . Newborn home visits. J Fam Pract. 1983; 17(4):635-8. View