Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28339460›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children's centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Toity Deave, Adrian Hawkins, Arun Kumar, Mike Hayes, Nicola Cooper, Michael Watson, Joanne Ablewhite, Carol Coupland, Alex Sutton, Gosia Majsak-Newman and 6 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Cost-effectiveness of the 'Stay One Step Ahead' Home Safety programme for the prevention of injuries among children under 5 years.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2025
    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

16 authors.

Toity DeaveCentre for Child & Adolescent Health, Health & Applied Sciences, University of the West of England Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Adrian HawkinsInstitute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Arun KumarDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Mike HayesChild Accident Prevention Trust, Barnet, London, United Kingdom.
Nicola CooperDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Michael WatsonFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Joanne AblewhiteDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Carol CouplandDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Alex SuttonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Gosia Majsak-NewmanNorfolk and Suffolk Primary and Community Care Research Office, Hosted by South Norfolk CCG, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Lisa McDaidNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital, NHS Clinical Research and Trials Unit, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Trudy GoodenoughCentre for Child & Adolescent Health, Health & Applied Sciences, University of the West of England Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Kate BeckettUniversity of the West of England, Research and Innovation, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Education Centre, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Elaine McCollInstitute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Richard ReadingJenny Lind Paediatric Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Denise KendrickDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundMany developed countries have high mortality rates for fire-related deaths in children aged 0-14 years with steep social gradients. Evidence-based interventions to promote fire safety practices exist, but the impact of implementing a range of these interventions in children's services has not been assessed. We developed an Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB), which brought together evidence about effective fire safety interventions and good practice in delivering interventions; plus training and facilitation to support its use and evaluated its implementation.

methodsWe conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated qualitative and cost-effectiveness nested studies, across four study sites in England involving children's centres in disadvantaged areas; participants were staff and families attending those centres. Centres were stratified by study site and randomised within strata to one of three arms: IPB plus facilitation (IPB+), IPB only, usual care. IPB+ centres received initial training and facilitation at months 1, 3, and 8. Baseline data from children's centres were collected between August 2011 and January 2012 and follow-up data were collected between June 2012 and June 2013. Parent baseline data were collected between January 2012 and May 2012 and follow-up data between May 2013 and September 2013. Data comprised baseline and 12 month parent- and staff-completed questionnaires, facilitation contact data, activity logs and staff interviews. The primary outcome was whether families had a plan for escaping from a house fire. Treatment arms were compared using multilevel models to account for clustering by children's centre.

results1112 parents at 36 children's centres participated. There was no significant effect of the intervention on families' possession of plans for escaping from a house fire (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) IPB only vs. usual care: 0.93, 95%CI 0.58, 1.49; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.41, 95%CI 0.91, 2.20). However, significantly more families in the intervention arms reported more behaviours for escaping from house fires (AOR IPB only vs. usual care: 2.56, 95%CI 01.38, 4.76; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.78, 95%CI 1.01, 3.15).

conclusionOur study demonstrated that children's centres can deliver an injury prevention intervention to families in disadvantaged communities and achieve changes in home safety behaviours.

Indexed as

Accident PreventionChild Day Care CentersChild, PreschoolFemaleFiresHumansMaleUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID28339460
PMCPMC5365108

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.