Findings from current measuring systemPassive Surveillance of Shaken Baby Syndrome Using Hospital Inpatient Data
Introduction
In the last 30 or so years, researchers have published many papers on shaken baby syndrome (SBS), also known as inflicted traumatic brain injury (inflicted TBI). This literature describes the nature of SBS and its risk factors, giving a reasonably clear picture of this phenomenon, how it occurs, and its effects. For example, SBS, or also referred to as abusive head trauma, is an extremely serious form of physical abuse occurring primarily in infants and young children aged <2 years and accounts for the vast majority of fatal and life-threatening injuries caused by child abuse. The outcomes of SBS are often devastating, with high case-fatality rates (15% to 38%) and incidence of neurologic consequences.1, 2, 3 Recent estimates suggest incidence rates for infants of 24.6 to 29.7 per 100,000 infants, and 17.0 per 100,000 for children aged <2 years.4, 5
As this body of knowledge continues to develop, the question is raised of how to conduct surveillance for SBS. Public health surveillance is the continuing and routine gathering of information useful for understanding and monitoring the health of the public.6 Unlike research, surveillance answers questions about changing incidence and characteristics of disease. Research is beginning to suggest that prevention of SBS may be possible.7, 8 Thus, SBS is joining the list of public health problems (e.g., HIV/AIDS, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, asthma, and occupational silicosis) that may be controlled if surveillance data are available to help monitor and evaluate population-based prevention policies and programs.9 This article proposes that hospital inpatient discharge data can provide a critical component for SBS surveillance.
Section snippets
Methods
Disease and health surveillance systems differ greatly according to whether they capture fatal, severe, or less-severe cases; use passive or active data-collection methods; collect limited or detailed information; are slow or timely; and other dimensions. Unlike medicine, which seeks case-specific information for clinical decisions, the purpose of public health surveillance is to capture population-based information accurately enough to base policy decisions and program planning. For
Results
Figure 1 displays the SBS surveillance data from California based on inpatient data analyzed in 2006. Annual rates for 1998–2004 show little fluctuation, with a modest downward trend in SBS, defined by either strict or broad criteria. Over the 7 data years, there is little departure from the overall rate of 5.1 for strict SBS and 14.0 for broad SBS (per 100,000 children <2 years). The meaning of the slight decline is unclear, but is consistent with another recent study.22
Table 1 compares
Discussion
This article is meant to stimulate dialogue on how best to develop feasible, sustainable surveillance of SBS using hospital inpatient data. Based on previous studies,3, 4, 23, 24 provisional exclusion and inclusion criteria were developed for cases of diagnosed SBS (strict definition) as well as for cases presumed to be SBS (broad definition). Table 2 shows that the broad definition produces rates per 100,000 children aged <1 and 2 years, respectively, that are roughly comparable to those
Conclusion
Despite the limitations of inpatient data, a passive surveillance system like the one proposed here can provide a critical component to a comprehensive SBS surveillance system, and may even be adequate for some purposes, including identifying high-risk areas or groups for intervention and monitoring trends over time. However, given the rare incidence of SBS, there will need to be a complete set of convergent surveillance measures that cover the full injury pyramid, including deaths,
References (31)
- et al.
Abusive head trauma in young children: characteristics and medical charges in a hospitalized population
Child Abuse Negl
(2004) - et al.
Annual incidence of shaken impact syndrome in young children
Lancet
(2000) - et al.
Child death review: the state of the nation
Am J Prev Med
(2003) Shaken baby syndrome: rotational cranial injuries—technical report
Pediatrics
(2001)Joint statement on shaken baby syndrome
(2001)- et al.
A population-based study of inflicted traumatic brain injury in young children
JAMA
(2003) - et al.
Shaken baby syndrome in Canada: clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospital cases
Can Med Assoc J
(2003) Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group
MMWR Recomm Rep
(2001)- et al.
Preventing abusive head trauma among infants and young children: a hospital-based, parent education program
Pediatrics
(2005) Preventing Shaken Baby Syndrome and Infant Abuse, 2006Important Update about the Period of PURPLE Crying Program
Building an effective child maltreatment surveillance system in North Carolina
N C Med J
Epidemiologic features of the physical and sexual maltreatment of children in the Carolinas
Pediatrics
Child abuse and neglect by parents and other caregivers
How states are collecting and using cause of injury data: 2004 update to the 1997 report
Hospitalized fall injuries and race in California
Inj Prev
Cited by (21)
Epidemiology of abusive head trauma in West Virginia children <24 months: 2000–2010
2019, Child Abuse and NeglectCitation Excerpt :Consistent with the narrow definition of AHT of the CDC and with the criteria used in the NC study, intracranial injury had to be documented for inclusion as a case. ( Keenan, 2008; Parks et al., 2012; Shanahan et al., 2013) The minimum criteria for inclusion as a case was the presence of intracranial injury in addition to a history incompatible to explain the injury (Reece, 2008). An additional board-certified Child Abuse Pediatrician performed a second review of potential cases to ensure interrater reliability.
Using international classification of diseases, 10th edition, codes to estimate abusive head trauma in children
2012, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :If the cases included codes for coagulation defects or birth trauma, they were excluded from the Narrow cases (n=4); cases with codes for coagulation defects, birth trauma, or osteochondrodysplasia were excluded from the Broad cases (n=5). Consequently, cases were defined by using combinations of ICD-10 codes that reflected varying degrees of specificity (designated “Narrow” and “Broad,” following Wirtz and Trent9) and of certainty (designated “Presumptive” and “Probable,” as in Parks et al.10). Cases classified as “narrow, presumptive” would represent the most-specific and conservative estimates of AHT; cases classified as “broad, probable” would represent more-sensitive but less-specific estimates of AHT that would be more encompassing and include additional cases of abusive head trauma.
Identification of ICD codes suggestive of child maltreatment
2011, Child Abuse and NeglectCitation Excerpt :In spite of these complex issues, ICD-coded data have been used for public health surveillance of a variety of causes of morbidity and mortality. Recently, several studies have investigated the use of hospital discharge data for surveillance of a specific type of child abuse, inflicted traumatic brain injury in infants (Ellingson, Leventhal, & Weiss, 2008; Wirtz & Trent, 2008). Moreover, hospital discharge data are one of the data sources proposed for use in developing a system to measure and monitor the incidence of inflicted traumatic brain injury (Runyan, Berger, & Barr, 2008).
Non-accidental head injury in New Zealand: The outcome of referral to statutory authorities
2009, Child Abuse and NeglectCitation Excerpt :NAHI, often described as “shaken baby syndrome,” is a significant issue in child health. The incidence is remarkably consistent across the world in epidemiologic studies published to date, with rates of 20–30 per 100,000 infants under the age of 1 year (Barlow & Minns, 2000; Ellingson, Leventhal, & Weiss, 2008; Hobbs, Childs, Wynne, Livingston, & Seal, 2005; Jayawant et al., 1998; Keenan et al., 2003; Kelly & Farrant, 2008; Minns, Jones, & Mok, 2008; Wirtz & Trent, 2008), and a high morbidity and mortality (Barlow, Thomson, Johnson, & Minns, 2005). Many more cases may go unrecognised (Jenny, Hymel, Ritzen, Reinert, & Hay, 1999; Reijneveld, van der Wal, Brugman, Sing, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2004; Runyan, 2008; Theodore et al., 2005).