Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24450931›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2014

Multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating implementation of a fire prevention Injury Prevention Briefing in children's centres: study protocol.

Toity Deave, Elizabeth Towner, Elaine McColl, Richard Reading, Alex Sutton, Carol Coupland, Nicola Cooper, Jane Stewart, Mike Hayes, Emma Pitchforth and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01452191 (Keeping Children Safe at Home), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01452191 nacompletednot on this map

Keeping Children Safe at Home: Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial of the Implementation of an Injury Prevention Briefing in Children's Centres for the Prevention of Fire-related Injuries

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of NottinghamRan2011 to 2013Enrolled1,112ConditionsBurns, Smoke Inhalation InjuryArmsInjury Prevention Briefing Plus facilitation, Injury Prevention Briefing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Toity DeaveCentre for Child & Adolescent Health, Health & Life Sciences, University of the West of England Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK. toity.deave@uwe.ac.uk.
Elizabeth Towner
Elaine McColl
Richard Reading
Alex Sutton
Carol Coupland
Nicola Cooper
Jane Stewart
Mike Hayes
Emma Pitchforth
Michael Watson
Denise Kendrick

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe UK has one of the highest fatality rates for deaths from fire-related injuries in children aged 0-14 years; these injuries have the steepest social gradient of all injuries in the UK. Children's centres provide children under five years old and their families with a range of services and information, including home safety, but their effectiveness in promoting injury prevention has yet to be evaluated. We developed a fire prevention intervention for use in children's centres comprising an Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB) which provides evidence on what works and best practice from those running injury prevention programmes, and a facilitation package to support implementation of the IPB. This protocol describes the design and methods of a trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the IPB and facilitation package in promoting fire prevention. METHODS/

designPragmatic, multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial, with a nested qualitative study, in four study centres in England. Children's centres in the most disadvantaged areas will be eligible to participate and will be randomised to one of three treatment arms comprising: IPB with facilitation package; IPB with no facilitation package; usual care (control). The primary outcome measure will be the proportion of families who have a fire escape plan at follow-up. Eleven children's centres per arm are required to detect an absolute difference in the percentage of families with a fire escape plan of 20% in either of the two intervention arms compared with the control arm, with 80% power and a 5% significance level (2-sided), an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05 and assuming outcomes are assessed on 20 families per children's centre. Secondary outcomes include the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, other fire safety behaviours and factors associated with degree of implementation of the IPB. DISCUSSION: This will be the first trial to develop and evaluate a fire prevention intervention for use in children's centres in the UK. Its findings will be generalisable to children's centres in the most disadvantaged areas of the UK and may also be generalisable to similar interventions to prevent other types of injury.

trial registrationhttp://NCT01452191 (date of registration: 13/10/2011).

Indexed as

BurnsChild Day Care CentersChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisFiresHumansProgram EvaluationSafety ManagementSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID24450931
PMCPMC3913957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.