Effectiveness of drowning interventions using education (included studies)
| Interventions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study characteristics (quality) | Intervention description | Key elements | Measures | Results |
| Bennett et al, 199917: Life Vest community-wide awareness campaign and evaluation | ||||
| Pre-post Evidence level: III-3 No control Parents of children 1–14 years USA | Media awareness campaign and evaluation county-wide over three summers 1992–1994 (print, promotions and special events). Life Vest retail programme (discount and loan options) Telephone surveys at baseline (n=332), twice during (n=400 each) and once after (n=480). | Messages: “Wear a life vest” “Supervise children around water” “Learn guidelines for water safety” Community-wide Evaluation: recall of campaign messages during and 12 months after campaign | Self-report knowledge surveys by telephone. Life vest ownership and use at beach/pool/boats. Drowning fatality rates. 3 years prior to vs 3 years during campaign. Other variables: Demographics, parent confidence. child swimming ability, perceived susceptibility of child to drowning, perceived life vest efficacy. | Life vest ownership 11% (95% CI 3% to 17%).* Life vest use (OR=1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.5) (self-reported).* Drowning fatalities: 12 deaths in 3 years among 1–14 years prior to campaign, and 8 deaths in 3 years during campaign (inc bathtubs).† Life vest use significantly associated with: child ownership of a vest (OR=2.6 95% CI 1.5 to 4.4) parent <40 years (OR=2.3 95% CI 1.5 to 3.6) child's poor swimming ability (OR=1.6 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4) parent confident fitting a vest (OR=3.2 95% CI 1.5 to 7) parent recalling campaign (OR=1.6 95% CI 1.1 to 2.5). |
| Gresham et al, 200119 Injury prevention curriculum delivered in schools—water safety component only | ||||
| Randomised controlled trial (RCT) Evidence level: II Intervention vs no intervention Grades 1–3 (6–9 years) USA | Integrated curricula and evaluation on injury and risk behaviour. Classroom delivery over 6-week period in fall 1997. 15 schools (8 intervention and 7 control), randomly allocated to control (n=1126) or Intervention (n=851) matched on SES, reading scores and race. | Trained teachers and school nurses delivered 6-week injury prevention curriculum. Water safety one of 6 topics. Self-report pre- and postintervention surveys. | Self-report knowledge surveys completed at school within 10 days. Knowledge of hazard of brain and spinal cord injury in different bodies of water. Knowledge of safety rules.Awareness of preventing water-related injury and drowning. Individual responsibility in prevention. | Water safety knowledge improved from pre- to postintervention (p<0.01 for each grade).* Note: self-report rather than injury reduction or observation. Contamination possible through community activities and media. |
| Posner et al, 200422 Injury prevention home-based safety information for parents attending ED | ||||
| RCT Evidence level: II Intervention vs no intervention Parents of children <5 years USA | Child presentations to ED with unintentional injury sustained at home September–December 2001. Randomly assigned to (intervention=49; control=47) Telephone survey 2months after ED visit. | Trained RAs delivered to caregivers, usual care (injury focused) vs comprehensive home safety education. Drowning one of 7 topics), a free home safety kit (a non-slip bath decal was the only water safety related device). | Knowledge of caregivers surveyed on 51-item multichoice home safety questionnaire to obtain overall safety score. (submersion category=4 items). Other: demographics and injury characteristic information. | No significant improvement (p>0.05) observed for drowning prevention.† Significant improvement (p<0.01) in overall safety scores in intervention group vs control group, attributed to increase in use of safety devices (p<0.001).* Self-reported use. |
*Statistically significant association.
†No association not statistically significant.
ED, emergency department; SES, socioeconomic status.