Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Introduction Burns are a frequent injury in children and can cause great physical and psychological impairment. Studies have identified positive effects of prevention measures based on increase in knowledge or reduction in hazards. The main goal of burn prevention campaigns, however, is to prevent burns. Therefore, this review is focused on the effectiveness of prevention programmes on the rates of burns in children.
Methods A literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus, including a reference-check. Included were studies which evaluated burn prevention programmes in terms of burn injury rate in children up to 19 years old. Studies specifically focused on non-accidental burns were excluded as well as studies with only outcomes such as safety knowledge or number of hazards.
Results The search led to 1783 articles that were screened on title and abstract. 85 articles were screened in full text, which led to 14 relevant studies. Nine of them reported a significant reduction in burn injury rate. Five others showed no effect on the number of burn injuries. In particular, studies that focused on high-risk populations and combined active with passive preventive strategies were successful.
Conclusion Some prevention programmes appear to be an effective manner to reduce the number of burn injuries in children. However, it is essential to interpret the results of the included studies cautiously, as several forms of biases may have influenced the observed outcomes. The research and evidence on this subject is still very limited. Therefore, it is of great importance that future studies will be evaluated on a decrease in burns and bias will be prevented. Especially in low-income countries, where most of the burns in children occur and the need for effective prevention campaigns is vital.
- child
- burn
- campaign
- program evaluation
- outcome evaluation
- systematic review
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
Contributors The design for this review was developed by NIMvB and FWB. The online database search was carried out by LJS. Abstract and full-text screening was performed by NIMvB and MB. Data extraction, risk of bias assessments and drafting of the original manuscript was performed by NIMvB under the guidance of MB and AM-dV. MHS and AM-dV were involved in the critical revision of the manuscript. AM-dV is the study guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.