Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24591447›Full record

ArticleInjury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention2014

Validation of a home safety questionnaire used in a series of case-control studies.

Michael Watson, Penny Benford, Carol Coupland, Rose Clacy, Paul Hindmarch, Gosia Majsak-Newman, Toity Deave, Denise Kendrick, Keeping Children Safe programme team

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

9 authors.

Michael WatsonFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Penny BenfordFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Carol CouplandFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Rose ClacyFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Paul HindmarchInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Gosia Majsak-NewmanNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Toity DeaveFaculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Denise KendrickFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Keeping Children Safe programme team

Funding

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

Abstract

objectiveTo measure the validity of safety behaviours, safety equipment use and hazards reported on a questionnaire by parents/carers with children aged under 5 years participating in a series of home safety case-control studies.

methodsThe questionnaire measured safety behaviours, safety equipment use and hazards being used as exposures in five case-control studies. Responses to questions were compared with observations made during a home visit. The researchers making observations were blind to questionnaire responses.

resultsIn total, 162 families participated in the study. Overall agreement between reported and observed values of the safety practices ranged from 48.5% to 97.3%. Only 3 safety practices (stair gate at the top of stairs, stair gate at the bottom of stairs, stairs are carpeted) had substantial agreement based on the κ statistic (k=0.65, 0.72, 0.74, respectively). Sensitivity was high (≥70%) for 19 of the 30 safety practices, and specificity was high (≥70%) for 20 of the 30 practices. Overall for 24 safety practices, a higher proportion of respondents over-reported than under-reported safe practice (negative predictive value>positive predictive value). For six safety practices, a higher proportion of respondents under-reported than over-reported safe practice (negative predictive value<positive predictive value).

conclusionsThis study found that the validity of self-reports varied with safety practice. Questions with a high specificity will be useful for practitioners for identifying households who may benefit from home safety interventions and will be useful for researchers as measures of exposures or outcomes.

Indexed as

SafetyAccident PreventionAccidents, HomeCase-Control StudiesChild, PreschoolEnglandFemaleHealth SurveysHumansInfantMalePredictive Value of TestsProtective DevicesSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesMethodology

Identifiers

PMID24591447
PMCPMC4174113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.