Article Text

Download PDFPDF

119 Cluster-randomised controlled trial of a fire safety injury prevention briefing in children’s centres
  1. Toity Deave1,
  2. Adrian Hawkins2,
  3. Mike Hayes3,
  4. Nicola Cooper4,
  5. Carol Coupland5,
  6. Gosia Majsak-Newman6,
  7. Trudy Goodenough1,
  8. Elaine McColl2,
  9. Richard Reading7,
  10. Denise Kendrick5
  1. 1University of the West of England Bristol, UK
  2. 2Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
  3. 3Child Accident Prevention Trust, London, UK
  4. 4University of Leicester, Leicester UK
  5. 5University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  6. 6South Norfolk CCG, Norwich, UK
  7. 7Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK


Background The UK has high mortality rates for fire-related deaths in children aged 0–14 years with steep social gradients. Interventions to promote fire safety practices can be effective in reducing the risk of fire-related injury. We therefore developed an evidence-based fire safety intervention comprising an Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB), training and facilitation for use in children’s centres.

Methods A cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated qualitative study, was conducted 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. Data collected comprised baseline and 12 months parent- and staff-completed questionnaires, home safety activity logs and staff interviews. The primary outcome was the proportion of families with a home fire-escape plan. Treatment arms were compared by using multilevel models to account for clustering by centre.

Results 1112 parents at 36 CCs participated. There was no significant effect of the intervention on family possession of fire-escape plans (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 achieved more fire-escape planning behaviours (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).

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

  • Injury Prevention Briefing
  • child injury
  • RCT
  • children’s centres

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.