Table 5

Community based studies

Author, date, and countryInjury target group and settingAims and content of interventionStudy type and sample sizeOutcome measuresKey results
C = control; I = intervention.
Svanstrom et al (1995),17 Sweden0–14 years. Community-wideLidköping Accident Prevention Programme Bicycle helmet campaigns, first aid training, loan schemes, local hazard removalControlled trial without randomisation. I1=Lidköping 35 949. C1=4 surrounding municipalities 42 078, C2=Skarabourg county278 162(A) Hospital discharge register data(A) From 1983 to 1991 a reported annual decrease in hospitalised injuries of 2.4% (boys) and 2.1% (girls) in I1. In C1, increase of 0.6% (boys) and 2.2% (girls). In C2 decrease of 1.0% (boys) and 0.3% (girls) InconclusiveReasonable/weak evidence
Day et al (1997),18 AustraliaGeneral population. Community-wideLatrobe Valley Better Health Project All age programme to prevent injuries, reduce hazards and increase awarenessBefore and after study (non-targeted injuries used for comparison data). (A) Injury surveillance system. (B) Telephone survey 375 pre-test, 400 post-test(A) Emergency Department presentations. (B) Self reported injury (C) Playground hazards(A) Decline in attendance rate from 6594 to 4821/100 000 for targeted injuries. Small decrease in non-targeted injuries. (B) Decrease in self-reported injuries from 62.7 to 48.2/1000 (not significant). Increase in injuries requiring medical attention from 24.5% to 31.9% (not significant). (C) Some hazard removal in playgrounds Partially effective/inconclusiveReasonable/weak evidence
Petridou et al (1997),19 Greece0–18 years. Older adults 65+. Community basedMultifaceted intervention with activities for parents, teachers, and children. Home visits, counselling on home hazardsControlled trial without randomisation. I=172 households on island of Naxos C=177 households on island of Spetses(A) Self report injuries. (B) Observed hazards Attitudes Knowledge(A) No difference in accidents reported in I and C. (B) For I: improvements on 11 out of 28 hazards C: improvements in 1 out of 28 hazards Partially effectiveReasonable/weak evidence
Lindquist et al (1999),20 SwedenGeneral population. Community basedMotala WHO Safe Community All age, all injury programme. Traffic, sport, and recreation targetedBefore and after study I=Motala 41 000Hospital admissions, severity and length of stayIn under 20 age group, total injuries decreased by 18% between before and after period InconclusiveReasonable/weak evidence
Ytterstad et al (1998),21 Norway0–4 yearsHarstaad WHO Safe Community Programme All age, all injury prevention Educational activities in a range of settings. Mass mediaControlled trial without randomisation. I1=Harstaad 23 000, I2=6 towns around Harstaad 14 000 C=Trondheim 134 000Morbidity data Outpatient admissions recordsDecrease in burn injury rates at 51.5% in I1 , 40.1% in I2 and increase of 18.1% in C InconclusiveReasonable/weak evidence