Prevention of childhood poisoning in the home: overview of systematic reviews and a systematic review of primary studies

Figures & data

Table 1. MEDLINE search terms.

1. review.m_titl.

2. systematic.m_titl.

3. meta-analysis.m_titl.

4. review.pt.

5. meta-analysis.pt.

6. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5

7. limit 6 to humans

8. exp child/

9. exp infant/

10. exp adolescent/

11. exp minors/

12. (child$ or adolesc$ or infan$ or young$ or toddl$ or bab$).tw.

13. or/8-12

14. exp "early intervention (education)"/

15. exp education/

16. exp public health/ed

17. exp parenting/

18. exp counseling/

19. (educat$ or train$ or teach$ or parent$ or counsel$ or supervis$).tw.

20. exp accident prevention/ or injury prevention.tw.

21. exp safety/

22. exp safety management/

23. safety practice$.tw.

24. safetyequipment.tw. or exp equipment safety/

25. exp infant equipment/

26. exp protective devices/ or (protect$ adj3 device$).tw.

27. exp "interior design and furnishings"/

28. exp consumer product safety/

29. exp drug storage/

30. ((medicine$ or drug$) adj3 storage).tw.

31. exp hazardous substances/ae, po or (hazardous adj3 substance$ adj3 storage).tw.

32. exp household products/ae, po or (household adj3 product$ adj3 storage).tw.

33. (((child adj3 resistant) or childproof) adj3 (closure$ or cap$ or container$)).tw.

34. ((cupboard$ or cabinet$ or drawer$ or box$) adj3 ($lock$ or latch$)).tw.

35. (medicine$ or cosmetics or ((clean$ or beauty or make-up or household or hazardous or industrial) adj3(supplies or products or materials))).tw.

36. ((toiletries or vitamin$ or cigarette$) adj3 (storage or cupboard$ or cabinet$ or drawer$ or box$ or reach or label$)).tw.

37. ((toxi$ or pollutant$ or gas$) adj3 prevent$).tw.

38. ((toxic or poison$) adj3 plant$ adj3 prevent$).tw.

39. exp ipecac/

40. (poison$ adj3 (control or sticker$ or telephone or number or emergenc$)).tw.

41. or/14-40

42. exp accidents/ or exp accidents, home/

43. exp poisoning/

44. exp "wounds and injuries"/

45. (accident$ or poison$ or injur$ or ingest$ or swallow$ or inhal$).tw.

46. or/42-45

47. 7 and 13 and 41 and 46

Table 2. Other electronic search sources.

Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects
NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment Database
Injury Prevention Research Centers at the Centers for Disease Control (USA)
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (UK)
Children's Safety Network (USA)
International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention (International)
Child Accident Prevention Trust (UK)
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (UK)
Injury Control Resource Information Network (USA)
National Injury Surveillance Unit (Australia)
SafetyLit (USA)
The National Research Register (UK) (up to September 2007)
UKCRN Clinical Research Portfolio

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.

Table 3. Characteristics of systematic reviews included in the overview of poisoning prevention interventions.

First author	Narrative review or meta-analysis	Included study designs*	Review quality (OQAQ)	Dates searched	Language restriction	Age	Intervention setting	Delivered by	Content of interventions	Outcome measures
DiGuiseppi 2000 (DiGuiseppi & Roberts, 2000)	Narrative review and meta-analysis	RCTs	5	Date of inception to 1998	None	0–19	Clinical settings	Physicians, health visitors, nurses	Counselling, safety equipment provision, home safety checks	Injuries, use of safety equipment
Elkan 2000 (Elkan et al., 2000)	Narrative review	RCTs, NRCTs, CBAs	5	1966–1997	Not reported	All ages	Home	Health visitors	Home visiting by British health visitors and non-British studies in which home visiting was undertaken by personnel with responsibilities within the remit of British health visitors	Injuries, use of safety equipment, prevention practices
Guyer 2009 (Guyer et al., 2009)	Narrative review	Experimental, quasi-experimental	4	1996–2007	English	0–5 years	All settings	General practitioners, community health workers, paediatricians	Counselling, safety equipment, home visits	Use of safety equipment, prevention practices
Kendrick 2007 (Kendrick, Barlow et al., 2007)	Narrative review	RCTs, NRCTs, CBAs	7	Date of inception to 2005	None	0–18 years	Home	Health visitors and nurses	Parenting interventions including written materials at home visit, education, support	Injuries, use of safety equipment, home hazards
Kendrick 2007(Kendrick, Coupland et al., 2007)	Narrative review and meta-analysis	RCTs, NRCTs, CBAs	7	Date of inception to 2004	None	0–19 years	Health care settings, schools, homes	Health or social care professionals, school teachers, lay workers or voluntary or other organisations	Education, counselling, provision of safety equipment	Injuries, possession and use of safety equipment, prevention practices
Lyons 2003 (Lyons et al., 2003)	Narrative review	RCTs, NRCTs, CBAs, ITS	7	Date of inception to 2002	None	All ages	Home	Community health workers, trained researchers/volunteers, general practitioners, paediatricians	Reduction of physical hazards	Injuries, safety equipment, hazards
Lyons 2006 (Lyons et al., 2006)	Narrative review	RCTs	5	Date of inception to 2004	None	All ages	Home, health care, clinical	Community nurses, trained researchers, project assistants, occupational therapists, health visitors	Education, safety equipment, reduction of hazards	Injuries, safety equipment, hazards
Nilsen 2004 (Nilsen, 2004)	Narrative review	CBAs	3	Not reported	Not reported	All ages	Community	Paediatricians, local health staff, school staff	Multi-strategy: education, home inspection, environmental improvements	Injuries
Nixon 2004 (Nixon et al., 2004)	Narrative review	CBAs, HCTs	3	Date of inception to 2003	Not reported	0–15 years	Community	Paediatricians, local health staff	Targeted education, household hazard identification and control, promotion of poison control telephone information service	Poisonings
Pearson 2009 (Pearson et al., 2009)	Narrative review	RCTs, NRCTs, CBAs, BAs	5	1990–2009	English	0–14 years	Various	General practitioners, doctors, nurses, research assistants, paediatricians, community health workers, health visitors	Safety equipment provision/installation home safety checks	Injuries, use of safety equipment, prevention practices
Spinks 2004 (Spinks et al., 2004)	Narrative review	CBAs, HCTs	4	Date of inception to 2002/3	Not reported	0–13 years	Community	Paediatricians, health staff	Counselling, hazard identification	Injuries
Towner 1996 (Towner et al., 1996)	Narrative review	RCTs, NRCTs, CBAs, BAs	4	1975–1995	Not reported	0–14 years	All settings	Paediatricians, local health staff, school staff, community outreach workers	Home inspection, modification, education	Injuries, use of safety equipment, prevention practices
Towner 2001 Towner, Dowswell, Mackereth, & Jarvis, 2001)	Narrative review	RCTs, NRCTs, CBAs, BAs	2	1975–2000	Not reported	0–14 years	All settings	Paediatricians, local health staff, school staff, community outreach workers	Home inspection, modification, education	Injuries, use of safety equipment, prevention practices
US Preventive Services Task Force 1996 (United States Preventive Services Task Force, 1996)	Narrative review	All designs	2	To 1995**	English	All ages	Clinical	Paediatricians	Counselling	Injuries
Waters 2001 (Waters et al., 2001)	Narrative review	All designs	3	Not reported	Not reported	0–4	All settings	Not reported	Education, environmental modification, safety equipment provision, legislation, policy	Injuries, use of safety equipment, safety practices

*RCT = Randomized controlled trial, QRCT = Quasi-randomized controlled trial, NRCT = Non-randomized controlled trial, CBA = Controlled before and after study, BA = Uncontrolled before and after study, ITS = Interrupted time series design, HCT = Historically controlled trial.

Table 4. Characteristics of primary studies included in the review.

First author	Design and risk of bias^a	Participants	Content of intervention	OutcomesPoisoning/Prevention Measuresn (%) or effect size (95% CI)
Babul 2007*(Babul, Olsen, Janssen, McIntee, & Raina, 2007)	RCT A – Y B – N F – N	Parents of new born infants at general hospital serving mainly urban or suburban communities First Nation peoples and non-English speakers excluded. Single parent families = 11% Rented accommodation = 39% In unpaid work = 55% Income < $20,000 = 17% Canada (n = 600).	I1: Home visit from community health nurse to identify hazards and teach parents how to remove or modify the hazards; free safety kit (smoke alarm, safety gate 50% discount coupon, table corner cushions, cabinet locks, blind cord windups, water temperature card, doorstoppers, electrical outlet covers, poison control sticker); instructional brochure targeting falls, burns, poisoning and choking; risk assessment checklist. I2: Free safety kit (see I1). C: Usual care.	Poison control emergency number available OR 0.64 (0.40 1.00)^1 Use of drawer latches OR 1.32 (0.82–2.31)^1 Preventative safety behaviours and removal of hazards: I1 vs C Medicines safely stored^4 OR 0.90 (0.17–4.70) Plants out of reach^4 OR 0.90 (0.57–1.43)
Baudier 1988* (Baudier et al., 1988)	RCT A – U B – U F - N	Infant school children from 42 schools and their parents Exploratory phase was carried out in ‘a working class area’. Operational phase carried out in the whole department of le Doubs. Data on socio-economic status not reported France (n = 494)	Exploratory phase in two schools: I: Use of safety teaching kit by teachers in school, cartoon book and sticker given to children to take home, weekly posters displayed on classroom doors to inform parents, exhibition in school hall, leaflets distributed, meeting held with parents about the risk of accidents discussed in school. C: None of the above. Operational phase in 40 schools: I: Provision to schools of safety teaching kit with user guide, leaflets, stickers, posters, suggestion of a mini exhibition, meeting with parents (6 took place in 20 schools with parent participation at meetings ranging from 0% to 20%). C: None of the above.	Parent made a change in safe storage of medicines or cleaning products: Exploratory phase in two schools: I: 27.0% C: 6.0% Numerators and denominators not reported. P < 0.001^1 Operational phase in 40 schools: I: 15.0% C:14.0% No significant difference Numerators, denominators and P value not reported.^1
Bulzachelli 2009** (Bulzacchelli et al., 2009)	NRCT B – N F – N Balance of confounders – N	Parents of children aged onde month to seven years attending well-child clinic in low-income, English speaking, urban communities I1= 96 I2= 98 C= 100 Data on socio-economic status not reported USA (n = 210)	I1 = prescribed visit to mobile child safety centre (MSC) I2 = optional visit to MSC C = told about purpose of MSC and given more information on request but not referred to MSC	Safe storage of poisons^4 OR 1.08 (0.35–3.35) Change in poison storage between baseline and follow-up in those who visited the MSC and those who did not. MSC Visitor = 25/71 (35%) with positive change^1 Non-visitor = 27/101 (27%) with positive change P = 0.49^1
Campbell 2001* (Campbell et al., 2001)	RCT (C) Allocation at level of schools A - U B – Y F – B	Hispanic migrant youths, aged 11–16 years, low income youths and their parent/carer) Boys = 51% Household income ≤ $15,000 = 67%. USA (n = 660)	I = Eight sessions of multimedia first aid and home safety training presented by bilingual and bicultural college students C = Eight sessions of multimedia tobacco and alcohol prevention education presented by bilingual and bicultural college students	Safe storage of medicines 95%.^1 Numerators, denominators and P value not reported. Safe storage of cleaning products 90%.^1 Numerators, denominators and P value not reported.
Clamp 1998* (Clamp & Kendrick, 1998)	RCT A – Y B – N F – Y	Families with children <5 years registered at one GP practice Receiving state benefits = 29% Single parent = 9% Rented accommodation = 19% Unemployed = 43% UK (n = 165)	I: General practitioner safety advice, leaflets and low cost safety equipment (smoke alarms, window locks, cupboard and drawer catches, socket covers, door slam devices, fire guards, stair gates). Discounted items offered to families in receipt of means tested state benefits (36%). C: Usual care.	Safe storage of cleaning materials RR 1.19 (0.95–1.49)^1 Safe storage of medicines RR 1.15 (1.03–1.28)^1
Colver 1982* (Colver et al., 1982)	RCT A – U B – U F – N	Families with children <5 years attending child health clinics, day nurseries, nursery classes and toddler group in deprived area Receiving state benefits = 52% Council accommodation = 89% No parent in full employment = 54% Single parent family = 21% Social class IV, V, or unclassified = 81% UK (n = 80).	I: Encouraged to watch TV safety campaign; home visit; advice on benefits to obtain safety equipment and local availability of safety equipment. C: Encouraged to watch TV safety campaign.	Safety changes made to home (included storage of medicines and domestic fluids and other safety practices) OR 14.30 (4.22 - 48.46)^2
Dershewitz 1977/1979* (Dershewitz, 1979)	RCT A – U B – Y F – N	Mothers of children attending a medical clinic enrolled in pre-paid medical plan Household head attended college = 90% White = 81% Median household annual income $19,000 in 1973. USA (n = 205)	I = safety advice + safety booklet + free safety equipment provided by researcher C = free safety equipment provided by researcher	Safe storage of non-prescription medicines OR 0.34 (0.03–3.29)^2 Use of cupboard locks (not specified for cupboards containing poisonous substances) OR 1.14 (0.64–2.05)^2
Fergusson 1982* (Fergusson et al., 1982)	NRCT B – U F – Y Balance of confounders – Y	Families of children aged 2–3 years participating in the Christchurch Child Development Study Mean annual gross income = NZ$10,494 Mean family size = two children Mean age of mother = 28 years Mean age of father = 31 years Ethnicity – Maori Pacific Islander = 7% One parent family = 9% Professional, executive, clerical occupations = 40% Below average standard of living = 6% New Zealand (n = 1126)	I = ‘Mr Yuk’ stickers for poisonous substances + list of substances to which sticker should be attached + educational leaflet provided by researcher C = none of the above	Medically attended poisonings IRR 0.98 (0.45–2.13)^4 Mean number of poisons within child's reach C = 14.80, I = 17.70, P > 0.05^4 Poisoning hazards score C = 79.96, I = 78.29, P > 0.05^4.
Garcia 1996* (Garcia, 1996)	CBA (C) Allocation at level of schools B – U F – U Balance of confounders – U	Fourth grade elementary school children and their parents Data on socio-economic status not reported USA (n = 3904)	I = safety fair at schools which included interactive safety stations on poisons, fires, and home injuries. C = no safety fairs	Poison safety Intervention school students showed significant improvement in poison safety. Numerators, denominators and P values not reported^1.
Gielen 2002* (Gielen et al., 2002)	RCT A – U B – U F – U	First and second year paediatric residents and their patient-parent dyads, low income population of parents of children aged 0–6 months Parent employed (full or part-time) = 66% Income < $5000/year = 39% Married = 13% More than high school education = 12% USA (n = 187).	I: Safety counselling by professional health educator; discounted home safety equipment during visit to Children's Safety Centre; home visit involving hazard assessment (targeting falls, burns and poisonings) and safety recommendations. C: Safety counselling by professional health educator; discounted home safety equipment during visit to Children's Safety Centre.	Possession of ipecac OR 1.22 (0.55–2.69)^2 Safe storage of poisons OR 0.81 (0.25–2.57)^2
Gielen 2007** (Gielen et al., 2007)	RCT A – Y B – N F – Y	English speaking parents of children aged 4–66 months attending an urban paediatric ED Black = 93% Unmarried = 69% Between 20 and 29 years old = 58% High school education = 75% Annual income < $5000 = 63% USA (n = 520)	I = personalized report containing tailored, stage-based messages based on the precaution adoption process model C = report on other child health topics	Safe storage of medicines OR 1.61 (1.10–2.36)^4 Safe storage of cleaning products OR 1.46 (0.67–3.18)^4 Safe storage of poisons OR 0.63 (0.45–0.89)^4
Guyer 1989*(Guyer et al., 1989)	CBA B – U F – Y Balance of confounders – N	Population of 14 cities and towns in Massachusetts Data on socio-economic status not reported USA(n = 286,676)	I: Community injury prevention programme including injury counselling by paediatricians to parents of young children and home safety inspections. C: No community injury prevention programme.	Rate of medically attended poisonings I = 36.14/10,000 person years C = 92.71/10,000 person years OR 0.95 (0.57–1.58) (adjusted for socio-economic group)^2 Poisoning preventive behaviour score (14 items) I = 34.3, C = 30.5. P value not reported^2
Hendrickson 2005 (Hendrickson, 2005)	RCT A – N B – N F – Y	Mothers with children aged 1–4 years, predominantly Mexican/Mexican American Hispanic = 87% White = 13% Married = 53.6% Never married = 16% Cohabiting = 20% Separated/divorced = 11% Housing in need of repair = 38% USA (n = 82)	I: Safety counselling from researchers; identification of home hazards; provision of safety equipment (door knob covers, smoke detectors or new batteries if smoke alarm already in situ, fire extinguisher, cabinet latches and outlet covers). C: None of the above.	Safe storage of cleaning products OR 15.79 (4.65–53.62)^2 Poison control centre sticker available OR 34.00 (9.32–123.97)^2
Johnston 2000* (Johnston et al., 2000)	RCT (C) Allocation at level of preschool enrichment programme centres A – N B – N F – Y	Families of children aged 4–5 years enrolled in Head Start programme provided to socio-economically disadvantaged children Caucasian = 60% African-American = 5% Hispanic = 12% Asian/Pacific Islander = 2% Native American/Alaskan Native = 7% Other = 1% USA (n = 362)	I = home safety inspections + educational material + provision of ipecac, smoke alarms and batteries provided by educational paraprofessionals C = home safety inspection + written information only	Possession of ipecac OR 16.91(6.25–45.78)^2 Removed poisons from home OR 2.48 (1.42 to 4.36)^2 Disposed of unused medicine OR 0.72 (0.35–1.47)^2
Johnston 2006* (Johnston et al., 2006)	NRCT (I1 + I2 vs C) with nested RCT (I1 vs I2) B – U F – N Balance of confounders – N	Pregnant women <22 weeks’ gestation White = 79% Family income: <$40,000 = 16% $40,000–$75,000 = 44% >$75,000 = 40% Single parent = 5% In receipt of public assistance = 9% USA (n = 343).	I1: Three home visits during pregnancy including home safety information; well-child visits enhanced by the addition of a ‘Healthy Steps’ professional. I2: Well-child visits enhanced by the addition of a ‘Healthy Steps’ professional. C: Usual care. ‘Healthy Steps Programme’, which included child safety, for the first 3 years of life including extended well child office visits (average 11 in first 2.5 years of life), home visits (average <2 in first 2.5 years of life), telephone helpline, parent groups, written information. Healthy steps professionals – nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers and early childhood educators.	Safety latches on cabinets I1 v C: RR 0.88 (0.83–0.93)^1 Poison control telephone number available I1 v C: RR 1.08 (10.3–1.12)^1
Kelly 1987* (Kelly, Sein, & McCarthy, 1987)	RCT A – U B – Y F – N	Parents of 6 month old children attending primary care centre for well child care Black = 74% Hispanic = 21% White = 5% Father in household = 19% Receiving welfare = 90% Home ownership = 11% Car ownership/access = 52% USA (n = 129)	I: Three-part individualized safety course at well-child care visits. C: Routine safety education.	Possession of ipecac OR 2.35 (0.99–5.57)^2 Storage of medicines out of reach I = 55/55 (0%) C = 54/54 (0%). P = NS^2 Storage of cleaning products out of reach OR 2.09 (0.71–6.13)^2
Kelly 2003* (Kelly et al., 2003)	RCT (C) Allocation at level of well-child care class A – U B – Y F – Y	Low income parents of children aged 15 months to 6 years attending women, infant and children Clinics Latino = 82% White = 7% Asian/Pacific Islander = 5% African-American/other = 6% English speaking/other = 11% Spanish speaking = 64% Bilingual = 25% USA (n = 289)	I = videotape + poison control centre pamphlet + poison control centre stickers C = usual care	Behaviour score combining possession of ipecac and having poison centre number accessible Mean difference I vs C: 0.59 (0.47–0.72)^1 Possession of ipecac OR 0.84 (0.49–1.47)^2 Poison control centre sticker accessible OR 8.94 (5.11–15.65)^2
Kendrick 1999* (Kendrick et al., 1999)	NRCT B – N F – N Balance of confounders – Y	Children 3–12 months registered at 36 GP practices In receipt of means tested benefits = 32% No access to car = 20% Non-owner occupation = 32% Single parent = 12% Non-white ethnic group = 6% Living in deprived area = 14% One parent unemployed = 9% Single parent or both parents unemployed = 2% UK (n = 2119)	I: Health visitor safety advice at child health surveillance; low cost equipment (stair gates, fire guards, cupboard and drawer locks, smoke alarms); home safety checks; first aid training. C: Usual care.	Medically attended poisonings IRR 1.09 (0.68–1.76)^4 Safe storage of cleaning products OR 1.24 (0.80–1.93)^2
Kendrick 2007** (Kendrick Groom et al., 2007)	RCT A – Y B – Y F – Y	Children aged 7–10 years in state funded primary schools Males = 52% Child age – 7 years = 20% Child age – 8 years = 33% Child age – 9 years = 33% Child age – 10 years = 14% Family does not have car = 14% UK (n = 459)	I: Injury prevention curriculum including a poisoning prevention lesson, delivered by school teachers. C: Usual care.	Child never gets medicines without asking adult OR 0.69 (0.30–1.59)^4
King 2001* (King et al., 2001)	RCT A – Y B – Y F – Y	Children <8 years attending A&E for injury or medical complaint Parents average age = 33 years Age mother had first child = 27 years (median) Parent's minimum education = 13 years (median) Child's age = 2 years (median) Males = 59% Canada (n = 1172)	I: Home safety inspection; information on correcting any deficiencies; discount vouchers for safety equipment; demonstrations of use of safety devices; information on preventing specific injuries provided by researcher. C: Home safety inspection and safety pamphlet.	Safe storage of cleaning products CRCs on cleaning products in kitchen OR 0.98 (0.77–1.27)^2 Safe storage of bathroom cleaning products OR 0.90 (0.69–1.16)^2 CRC's on bathroom cleaning products OR 0.98 (0.74–1.31)^2
Lacouture 1978* (Lacouture et al., 1978)	CBA (C) Allocation at level of towns A – U B – N F – U Balance of confounders – Y	School children aged 6–14 years in Wilmington (intervention) and Scituate (control), Massachusetts Median school years completed. I = 2.2 years; C = 12.9 years Median family income – I = $11,713 C = $13,401 Per cent of population with incomes below poverty level. I = 3.6%. C = 4.2% USA (n = 400)	I = community poison prevention education programme, directed at school children C = no community poison prevention education programme	Possession of ipecac Significantly more intervention group families had ipecac than control group families after intervention. Numerators and denominators not reported. P < 0.05^1
LeBailley 1990*(LeBailley et al., 1990)	NRCT Sequential allocation to treatment group A – U B – U F – N Balance of confounders – U	Families attending two paediatric group practices, one in urban area, other in suburban area Data on socio-economic status not reported USA (n = 407)	I1 = well child visit + safety equipment I2 = well child visit + safety equipment + safety counselling by physician I3 = well child visit + safety counselling by physician C = well-child visit	Possession of ipecac– Significantly more Intervention families possessed ipecac. Numerators, denominators and P values not reported^1.
LeBlanc 2006** (LeBlanc et al., 2006)	Matched CCS NOS for CCS 8/9	Children aged younger than 8 years who presented to an emergency department with injuries from falls, burns or scalds, ingestions or choking. and children presenting to same emergency department with non-injury diagnosis Mother's education < 12 years = 16% Either parent in labour or service sector = 40% Father unemployed or house-parent = 4% Canada (n = 692)	Exposures measured:	No child-resistant lids on bathroom bottles OR 1.70 (1.18–2.44)^1 No child-resistant lids on household cleaning supplies OR 1.02 (0.70–1.48)^1 Easy access to bathroom beauty supplies or medications OR 1.06 (0.76–1.47)^1 Easy access to household cleaning supplies OR 1.05 (0.77–1.45)^1
McDonald 2005*(McDonald et al., 2005)	RCT A – Y B – U F – N	Parents of children aged 6 weeks - 24 months attending well child clinic in urban areas African-American = 93% Housing status Home renter 82% Home owner 6% Neither rent nor own 12% Children living with two parent family 46% Children living with siblings – 65% USA (n = 144)	I: Tailored safety advice in kiosk in well-child clinic; feedback report to paediatrician to encourage safety counselling; information on safety equipment savings at child safety centre. C: Usual care.	Storage of medicines out of reach OR 1.47 (0.39–5.51)^2 Storage of cleaning products out of reach OR 1.96 (0.47–8.25)^2 Possession of syrup of ipecac OR 5.57 (1.93–16.03)^2
Minkovitz 2003* (Minkovitz et al., 2003)	RCT& a cluster allocated CBA RCT: A – Y B – U F = N CBA (C) F – N A – Y B – U Balance of confounders-N	Participants were children enrolled at birth and followed up through age 3 years. English or Spanish speaking only Mother's education; ≤11y = 14.6% High school graduate = 26% Some college/vocational school = 29% College graduate = 31% Mother's race White = 62% African-American = 23% Asian/native American = 4% Other = 11% Married = 68% Single parent = 20% Mother employed = 36% Father employed = 89% Home owner = 57% Income at baseline Low (<$20,000) = 29% Middle ($20,000–40,000) = 36% High (≥$50,000) = 35% USA Randomisation trial, n = 2235 Cluster CBA, n = 3330	Intervention arm: ‘Healthy Steps Programme’,which included child safety, for the first 3 years of life including extended well-child office visits (average 11 in first 2.5 years of life), home visits (average <2 in first 2.5 years of life), telephone helpline, parent groups, written information. Programme delivered by paediatricians and Healthy Steps Specialists (nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers and early childhood educators). Control arm: conventional paediatric care.	Safety latches on cabinets I = 1277/2021 (63%) C = 1059/1716 (62%) p = 0.34^1
Nansel 2002* (Nansel et al., 2002)	RCT A – Y B – U F – Y	Parents of children aged 6–20 months attending well-child check Number of adults in home: One = 19% Two = 50% Three or more = 31% African-American = 85% Caucasian = 5% Other = 10% Education: High school or less = 54% College = 47% Income < $10,000 = 25% $10,000–$24,999 = 30% $25,000–$49,999 = 25% >$50,000 = 20% USA (n = 213).	I: Tailored computer-generated safety advice in well-child clinic. C: Generic computer-generated safety advice in well-child clinic	Storage of medicines out of reach OR 0.95 (0.29–3.08)^2 Storage of cleaning products out of reach OR 1.28 (0.64–2.56)^2 Possession of ipecac OR 1.38 (0.68–2.80)^2 Poison control centre sticker available OR 1.46 (0.76–2.80)^2
Nansel 2008** (Nansel et al., 2008)	NRCT B – N F – N Balance of confounders – N	Parents of children aged ≤ 4 years attending well-child visits at three paediatric clinics with mainly low to middle income patients Race – African-American = 58% Race – Caucasian = 34% Race – Other = 8% Education – <High school degree = 13% Education – High school degree or equiv. = 44% Education – any college = 42% Relationship to child Mother/stepmother = 85% Father/stepfather = 6% Grandparent/other = 9% Income – $10,000 = 40% $10,000–14,999 = 17% $15,000–24,999 = 16% $25,000–49,999 = 17% >$50,000 = 8% Home owner = 30% Home renter = 70% USA (n = 305)	I1: Tailored injury prevention advice. I2: Tailored injury prevention advice and feedback to health care provider. C: Generic injury prevention advice.	Storage of medicines out of reach OR 0.97 (0.17–5.43)^4 Storage of cleaning products out of reach OR 1.03 (0.50–2.11)^4 Poison control centre sticker available OR 0.56 (0.25–1.27)^4
Odendaal 2009** (Odendaal et al., 2009)	RCT A - N B – Y F – Y	Households with children ≤ 10 years old living in low-income communities Single parent household = 41% Unemployed = 86% Main caregiver – Mother = 75% Education level No schooling = 1% Primary and secondary school only = 97% After school training = 4% South Africa (n = 211)	I: Home safety check; safety advice; free safety devices (insulation tape for connecting electrical cords, safety nails for attaching electrical cords to walls or floors, paraffin storage container with CRC and warning label and bag and hook for safe storage of poisonous substances). C: Usual care.	Poisoning score (mean (se) and mean difference) I = 2.9 (0.23), C = 4.0 (0.25), IE1.1 (0.44–1.77)^1
Paul 1994* (Paul et al., 1994)	RCT A – U B – U F – N	Families with children aged 10 months to 2 years born at local rural hospital Married = 93% Home owner = 15% Home renter = 85% More than 1 child = 72% Education – high school cert or higher = 64% Australia (n = 198)	I: Home safety check; tailored education booklet; local safety equipment retail outlets identified, mail order addresses provided or equipment ordered through research team and made available at local hospital. C: None of the above.	Lockable cabinet for storage of poisons in kitchen/bathroom/laundry Intervention group more likely to have lockable cabinets post-intervention than pre-intervention. Numerators and denominators not reported. P < 0.05^1. Possession of ipecac Intervention group more likely to have ipecac than control group. Numerators and denominators not reported. P < 0.01^1.
Petridou 1997* (Petridou et al., 1997)	CBA B – N F – Y Balance of confounders – Y	Random sample of households containing children or adolescents from towns on two Greek islands, Naxos and Spetse Data on socio-economic status not reported Greece (n = 349).	I: Community intervention including safety seminars for parents, courses with primary and secondary school children on safety and resuscitation, and leaflets; focussed intense intervention including lay home visitors, weekly visits to discuss home safety in households with children or older people. C: None of the above.	Poison control centre sticker available OR 1.30 (0.70–2.38)^2 Possession of ipecac OR 10.28 (2.31–45.83)^2
Phelan 2011** (Phelan et al., 2011)	RCT A – Y B – N F - Y	Pregnant women, aged 18 years and over, < 19 weeks gestation, attending pre-natal practices Residing in houses built prior to 1978 White non-Hispanic = 68% Black non-Hispanic = 25% Other race = 7% Maternal education: ≤High school = 19% < College = 25% College graduate/postgraduate = 56% Income: <$30,000 = 26% $30,000–49,999 = 15% $50,000–69,000 = 15% $70,000–89,999 = 22% $90,000–119,999 = 8% >$120,00 = 12% Unknown = 1% USA (n = 355).	I: Home safety inspection; provision and fitting of free safety equipment (stair gates, non-slip matting under rugs, window guards, repair of stair handrails, cupboard/drawer locks, door knob covers, storage bins, socket covers, smoke detectors, CO detectors, stove guards, stove locks); safety advice handout. C: Safety advice handout.	Poison control centre sticker available OR 7.96 (4.29–14.77)^4 Storage of poisons out of reach OR 0.10 (0.02–0.46)^4
Posner 2004* (Posner et al., 2004)	RCT A – Y B – Y F – N	Caregivers of children <5 years attending ED for home injury Urban Predominantly black lower income Caregiver mother = 84% Caregiver father = 13% Caregiver grandparent = 1% Caregiver other = 2% Caregiver education <High school = 5% High school = 30% >High school = 46% No response = 19% Employed = 61% Home renter = 50% Home owner = 43% Child age (mean) years = 2 Child gender male = 89% Child race: Black = 76% Child race: Hispanic = 1% Child race: White = 15% Child race: Other = 8% USA (n = 96)	I: Home safety counselling by trained lay personnel; home safety kit (cupboard and drawer locks, socket covers, bath tub spout covers, non-slip bath decals, bath water thermometer, poison control centre number stickers, free small parts tester); home safety literature. C: Home safety literature.	Storage of medicines out of reach OR 1.49 (0.64–3.49)^2 Storage of cleaning products out of reach OR 2.58 (1.12–5.94)^2 Poison control centre sticker available OR 1.85 (0.79–4.32)^2 Storage of plants out of reach OR 0.58 (0.14–2.48)^2 Never stores chemicals in drinks bottle I = 49/49 (100%), C = 46/47 (98%) OR not calculable^2 Possession of CO detector OR 1.31 (0.52–3.27)^2 Tested CO detector within 6 months OR 0.27 (0.04–1.85)^2 Poisoning safety practices score I = 74.4, C = 64.9, P < 0.02^1
Reich 2011** (Reich et al., 2011)	RCT A – U B –U F - U	Ethnically diverse Primiparous women in their third trimester of pregnancy Education: High school = 56% College = 44% Marital status: Married/living as married = 20% Other = 80% Race: Black non-Hispanic = 61% Other = 39% Income: <$8000 = 15% $8000–$21,000 = 26% $21,001–$40,000 = 14% $40,001–>$50,000 = 9% Missing income data = 37% USA (n = 198)	I1 (n = 53): educational intervention book during third trimester and additional books when baby was 2, 4, 6,9, and 12 months old via a home visit I2 (n = 56): books with the same illustrations but with different non-educational text on the same schedule as I1. C (n = 58): did not receive any books.	Low reffort items: Odds ratio (SE)^1 No poisonous substances in house^1 I1 v C: 1.01 (0.82) I1 v I2: 1.28 (0.72) I2 v C: 0.90 (0.56) High effort items: Odds ratio (SE)^1 Latches on cabinets^1 I1 vs C: 0.80 (0.41) I1 vs I2: 0.85 (0.40) I2 vs C: 0.89 (0.35) Latches on drawers^1 I1 vs C: 1.89(1.72) I1 vs I2: 3.85 (4.44) I2 vs C: 0.72 (0.53)
Sangvai 2007* (Sangvai, Cipriani, Colborn, & Wald, 2007)	RCT A – Y B – Y F – N	Parents of children aged 0-5 years enrolled at three paediatric practices in rural and urban areas serving low/middle income population Public insurance = 46% Private insurance = 54% Race – White = 52% Race – African-American = 43% Race – Other = 5% Maternal education: ≤HS = 38% HS + any college = 32% ≥ College grad = 29% Unknown = 1% Housing: Single home = 55% Duplex/attached = 14% Apartment = 29% Mobile home = 2% USA (n = 319)	I = safety counselling from physician and researcher, free safety equipment (smoke detectors, gun locks, cabinet locks, and water temperature cards) and brief educational hand-out for parents C = usual care	Storage of poisons out of reach OR 0.10 (0.02–0.63)^4
Scherz 1968* (Scherz, 1968)	CBA (C) Allocation at level of geographic area covering Army Post Exchanges A – U B – U F – U Balance of confounders – U	Families of army personnel Data on socio-economic status not reported USA No ‘n’ reported 270,00 CRC distributed with children's aspirin	I = free child-resistant container attached to boxes of children's aspirin, sold at Post Exchanges C = children's aspirin sold at other sites without CRC attached	Medically attended aspirin poisoning proportion of all poisonings due to aspirin: Pre-intervention; intervention area = 71%, control area = 29%^1 Post-intervention; intervention area = 23%, control area = 77%^1 No P value reported
Schwarz 1993* (Schwarz et al., 1993)	CBA B – N F – N Balance of confounders – Y	Population of nine census tracts, predominantly low income, urban, African-American Median family income = $19,021 Race: African-American = 96% Race: Other = 4% Age: <5 years = 10% Age: 5—17 years = 18% Age: 18 – 64 years = 56% Age ≥65 years = 16% USA (n = 34,203).	I: Home inspection, modification and education in homes and at block and community meetings; provision of syrup of ipecac, smoke alarms and batteries, bath water thermometers, night lights, emergency centre number sticker and fridge sticker with information on preventing injury. C: None of the above.	Possession of ipecac OR 22.24 (13.53–36.54)^2 Storage of medicines out of reach OR 1.94 (1.35–2.78)^2 Medicines not in CRCs^2 OR 1.83 (1.81–2.83)
Steele1985a* (Steele & Spyker, 1985a)	CBA (C) Allocated at level of cities A – U B – U F – U Balance of confounders – U	Populations of Escondido (intervention) and Chula Vista (control), California Data on socio-economic status not reported USA (n = 137,000)	I = community poison prevention programme including mass media, training of health care, n = 62,000 personnel to provide poison prevention education to clients, safety fairs C = no community poison prevention programme n = 75,000	Medically attended poisonings – No significant difference in post versus pre injury rates in intervention or control communities^1. Poison centre utilization No significant difference^1 Possession of ipecac No significant difference^1 Numerators, denominators and P values not reported
Steele 1985b* (Steele & Spyker, 1985b)	RCT A – U B – U F – U	Parents of children aged 6 months to 4 years attending well baby clinics, primary caretakers aged ≥ 18 years, Virginia, English speaking with a telephone available No socio-economic information on study population provided USA (n not reported)	I1 = one-to-one poisoning education, with reinforcement by physician I2 = I1 + burns education I3 = one-to-one burns education, with reinforcement by physician C = no education	Self-reported poisoning No significant difference for poison injury rates^1 Poison centre utilization Intervention groups exhibited significantly more likely to call a poison control centre^1. Numerators, denominators and P values not reported
Swart 2008** (Swart et al., 2008)	RCT A – N B – Y F – Y	Households with children under 10 years in low-income communities Respondent is mother or father = 79% Respondent is brother or sister = 5% Child left in care of person <16 years = 19% Caretaker has only primary education = 32% South Africa (n = 410).	I: Home visits with safety advice on prevention of burns, poisoning and falls; free safety devices (childproof locks and paraffin container safety caps). C: Usual care.	Beauty products properly labelled in tightly closed non-glass containers. OR 0.75 (0.17 to 3.42)^4 Safe storage of beauty products. OR 2.13 (1.00 to 4.53)^2 Medicines properly labelled in tightly closed non-glass containers. OR 0.33 (0.03 to 3.23)^4 Storage of medicines out of reach OR 1.59 (0.54–4.69)^4 Cleaning products properly labelled in tightly closed non-glass containers. OR 6.04 (0.44 to 83.02)^4 Cleaners stored on same shelf as food. OR 0.84 (0.17 to 4.14)^4 Storage of cleaning products out of reach OR 1.71 (0.61–4.76)^4 Paraffin properly labelled in tightly closed non-glass containers. OR 5.02 (1.26 to 19.98)^4 Safe storage of paraffin. OR 1.47 (0.51–4.25)^4 Paraffin stored in CRC. OR 3.39 (1.28–9.02)^4 Alcohol properly labelled in tightly closed non-glass containers. OR 1.01 (0.20–5.07)^4 Safe storage of alcohol. OR 1.76 (0.48–6.50)^2 Rat poison properly labelled in tightly closed non-glass containers. OR 1.01 (0.14–7.25)^4 Safe storage of rat poison. OR not calculable^4 Poisoning safety practices score. Mean (SE) score, Mean difference. I = 1.9 (0.11) C = 2.4 (0.20), −0.45 (−1.01 to 0.11) ^1
Sznajder 2003* (Sznajder et al., 2003)	RCT A – Y B – N F – Y	Socio-economically disadvantaged families, with medical or psychological difficulties which place them at high risk Respondent – mother = 87% One parent family = 13% Two parent family = 82% Reconstituted family = 4% Living in house = 6% Living in block of flats = 92% Temporary and unknown dwelling = 2% Parental education Primary school = 6% Secondary school = 23% Grammar school = 15% University = 52% Unknown = 4% Employment: Salaried = 61% Independent = 1% Training = 1% Jobless = 3% Home = 31% France (n = 100)	I: Free home safety kit (cupboard and drawer locks, door handle covers, furniture corner protectors, socket covers, non-slip bath mat, smoke alarm, poison control centre number stickers); home safety counselling by health professionals; safety leaflets. C: Home safety counselling by health professionals; safety leaflets.	Safe storage of medicines OR 2.44 (0.45–13.28)^2 Safe storage of cleaning products OR 1.41 (0.49–4.06)^2 Storage of plants out of reach OR8.20 (0.97–69.40)^4 Safe storage of home maintenance products (weed killers, insecticides, kerosene) I = 10/14 (71%) C = 6/17 (35%)^1 Safe storage of beauty products (bath oil, shampoos, aftershave lotions) I = 21/32 (66%) C = 13/25 (52%)^1 Safe storage of alcohol I = 10/18 (56%) C = 2/16 (13%)^1 No P values reported
Vineis 1994* (Vineis, Ronco, Ciccone, & Gogliani, 1994)	NRCT B – N F – N Balance of confounders – U	Parents of newborn babies in Rivoli Data on socio-economic status not reported Italy (n = 1015)	I: 15 minutes counselling by nurse; distribution of three educational booklets – one on prevention of home injuries in childhood, one on smoking and one on passive smoking C: None of the above	Poisoning preventive behaviours No significant difference in preventive behaviours for cleaning products or medicines – score ranging from 0 (least risky behaviour) to 3 (most risky behaviours) No P values reported.^1
Watson 2005* (Watson et al., 2005)	RCT A – Y B – N F – N	Families with children <5 years on caseloads of health visitors in deprived areas In receipt of means tested benefits = 48% No car = 30% Living in rented accommodation = 45% Overcrowding = 11% Single parent family = 27% Non-white ethnic group = 14% Lives in deprived area = 70% One parent unemployed = 35% Both parents unemployed = 33% UK (n = 3428)	I: Health visitor safety consultation; free fitted safety equipment (stair gates, fire guards, cupboard and drawer locks, smoke alarms, window locks). Free items supplied and fitted for families in receipt of benefits, free delivery for other families. C: Usual care.	Storage of medicines out of reach OR 1.15(0.77–1.71)^2 Safe storage of cleaning products out of reach OR 1.18(0.96–1.46)^2 Medicines in kitchen OR 1.55 (1.00–2.40)^1 Cleaning products in kitchen OR 1.31 (1.07–1.60)^1 Cleaning products in bathroom OR 1.06 (0.86–1.31)^1
Wissow 1989* (Wissow et al., 1989)	RCT A – U B – Y F – N	Families with children <6 years attending paediatric ED or clinic following injury Data on socio-economic status not reported USA (n = 62)	I: Home hazard inspection, education and free safety equipment provided at home (smoke alarm battery, poison control sticker, syrup of ipecac, safety latches, outlet plugs). I = 36 C: Free safety equipment provided at hospital. C = 26	Possession of ipecac – Significantly more control group families had ipecac. P = 0.009^1 Poison centre number accessible ^1
Woolf 1987* (Woolf et al., 1987)	RCT (C) A – U B – Y F – N	Families attending medical ED with children < 5 years Urban poor population White = 44% Black = 35% Hispanic = 13% Other = 8% Marital status: Married = 58% Single = 26% Divorced, separated, other = 16% Education: minimum of high school certificate Mother = 79% Father = 71% Mother unemployed = 56% Father unemployed = 14% USA (n = 202)	I = Counselling by medical staff on poisoning treatment methods, leaflet on poison prevention, poison control centre number sticker + ipecac C = none of the above	Possession of ipecac OR 2.95 (1.77–4.90)^2 Poison centre number accessible OR 2.57 (1.48–4.44)^2 Storage of cleaning products, medicines, perfume Numerators, denominators and P values not reported ^1
Woolf 1992* (Woolf et al., 1992)	RCT (C) A – U B – Y F – Y	Families of children less than or equal to 5 years with a poisoning who contacted the poison control centre and did not have ipecac White = 90% Median income $30,000 Maternal age (mean) = 30 years Paternal age (mean) = 32 years Maternal education (mean) = 14 years Paternal education (mean) = 14 years Married = 90% USA (n = 301)	I = mailed $1 coupon for ipecac, one cupboard lock, checklist for poison proofing the home, leaflets C = none of the above	Self-reported repeat poisoning No significant difference. Numerators, denominators and P values not reported^1 Possession of ipecac OR 1.22 (0.78–1.93)^2 Poison centre number accessible OR 5.53 (3.33–9.17)^2 Safe storage of cleaning products OR 2.21 (1.40–3.51)^2
Zhao 2006**(Zhao et al., 2006)	RCT A – U B – U F – Y	Children aged 7–13 years attending four primary schools Data on socio-economic status not reported Two rural schools, two urban schools China	I = safety education provided to parents and children C = usual care	Self-reported poisoning 1 year after intervention I = 6/3172 C = 8/2669; not significant. P value not reported.^1 Self- reported poisoning 2 years after intervention IRR 0.30 (0.10–0.94)^1

* Study identified from an included systematic review/meta-analysis.

** Study identified from subsequent searches for additional primary studies. ^aRisk of bias: A = allocation concealment, B = blinding of outcome assessment, F = follow up on ≥80% of participants. For NRCTs and CBAs confounders were judged to be balanced if their prevalence did not differ between groups by >10%. Y = yes, N = no, U = unclear. NOS = Newcastle–Ottawa Score.

¹= results from primary study.

²= results from systematic review – Kendrick et al. (2007).

³= results from systematic review – Pearson et al. (2009).

⁴= unpublished data provided to the authors from which ORs calculated.

DiGuiseppi, C., & Roberts, I.G. (2000). Individual-level injury prevention strategies in the clinical setting. Future of Children, 10(1), 53–82.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Elkan, R., Kendrick, D., Hewitt, M., Robinson, J.J., Tolley, K., Blair, M., … Brummell, K. (2000). The effectiveness of domiciliary health visiting: A systematic review of international studies and a selective review of the British literature. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 4(13), i-v, 1–339.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Guyer, B., Ma, S., Grason, H., Frick, K.D., Perry, D.F., Sharkey, A., & McIntosh, J. (2009). Early childhood health promotion and its life course health consequences. Academic Pediatrics, 9(3), 142–149.e171. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2008.12.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kendrick, D., Barlow, J., Hampshire, A., Polnay, L., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). Parenting interventions for the prevention of unintentional injuries in childhood. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4), CD006020.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kendrick, D., Coupland, C., Mulvaney, C., Simpson, J., Smith, S.J., Sutton, A., … Woods, A. (2007). Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1), CD005014.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lyons, R.A., Sander, L.V., Weightman, A.L., Patterson, J., Jones, S.A.L.S., Rolfe, B., … Johansen, A. (2003). Modification of the home environment for the reduction of injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), (4), CD003600–CD003600.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Lyons, R.A., John, A., Brophy, S., Jones, S.J., Johansen, A., Kemp, A., … Weightman, A. (2006). Modification of the home environment for the reduction of injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003600.pub2

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nilsen, P. (2004). What makes community based injury prevention work? In search of evidence of effectiveness. Injury Prevention, 10(5), 268–274.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nixon, J., Spinks, A., Turner, C., & McClure, R. (2004). Community based programs to prevent poisoning in children 0-15 years. Injury Prevention, 10(1), 43–46.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pearson, M., Garside, R., Moxham, T., & Anderson, R. (2009). Systematic reviews of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home safety equipment and risk assessment schemes. In M. Pearson (Ed.), (pp. 1–316). Plymouth: Penisular Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Peninsular Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth.

 Google Scholar

Spinks, A., Turner, C., McClure, R., & Nixon, J. (2004). Community based prevention programs targeting all injuries for children. Injury Prevention, 10(3), 180–185.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Towner, E., Dowswell, T.,Jarvis, S., & Simpson, G. (1996). Preventing unintentional injuries in children and young adolescents. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. York: University of York.

 Google Scholar

Towner, E., Dowswell, T., & Jarvis, S. (2001). Updating the evidence. A systematic review of what works in preventing childhood unintentional injuries: Part 2. Injury Prevention, 7(3), 249–253.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

United States Preventive Services Task Force. (1996). Guide to clinical preventive services: Report of the U.S. preventive services task force. In C. DiGuiseppi, D. Atkins,& S.H. Woolf (Eds.), (2nd ed., pp. 659–685). Baltimore, MD: United States Preventive Services Task Force.

 Google Scholar

Waters, E., Shield, J., Nolan, T., Green, J., Elkingtong, J., Moller, J., … Scott, S. (2001). Evidence based health promotion - No 4 child injury prevention. Melbourne: Centre for Community Child Health, the University of Melbourne and the Safety Centre of the Royal Children's Hospital.

 Google Scholar

Baudier, F., Marchais, M., Ferry, B., Bourderont, D., Pinochet, C., & Blum, D. (1988). A cooperative program for the prevention of domestic accidents in children at the department of the Doubs. II. Educative aspects and evaluation. Archives Francaises de Pediatrie, 45(7), 499–503.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Bulzacchelli, M., Gielen, A., Shields, W., McDonald, E.M., & Frattaroli, S. (2009). Parental safety-related knowledge and practices associated with visiting a mobile safety center in a low-income urban population. Family & Community Health, 32(2), 147–158.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clamp, M., & Kendrick, D. (1998). A randomised controlled trial of general practitioner safety advice for families with children under 5 years. British Medical Journal, 316(7144), 1576–1579.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Colver, A.F., Hutchinson, P.J., & Judson, E.C. (1982). Promoting children's home safety. British Medical Journal, 285(6349), 1177–1180.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., Beautrais, A.L., & Shannon, F.T. (1982). A controlled field trial of a poisoning prevention method. Pediatrics, 69(5), 515–520.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Garcia, V.F. (1996). Safety Fairs: Evaluation of a school-based injury prevention program. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Injury Prevention and Control, Melbourne, Australia.

 Google Scholar

Gielen, A.C., McKenzie, L.B., McDonald, E.M., Shields, W.C., Wang, M.C., Cheng, Y.J., … Walker, A.R. (2007). Using a computer kiosk to promote child safety: Results of a randomized, controlled trial in an urban pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics, 120(2), 330–339. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2703

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guyer, B., Gallagher, S.S., Chang, B.-H., Azzara, C.V., Cupples, L.A., & Colton, T. (1989). Prevention of childhood injuries: Evaluation of the statewide childhood injury prevention program (SCIPP). American Journal of Public Health, 79(11), 1521–1527.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hendrickson, S.G. (2005). Reaching an underserved population with a randomly assigned home safety intervention. Injury Prevention, 11(5), 313–317.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Johnston, B.D., Britt, J., D'Ambrosio, L., Mueller, B.A., & Rivara, F.P. (2000). A preschool program for safety and injury prevention delivered by home visitors. Injury Prevention, 6, 305–309.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Johnston, B.D., Huebner, C.E., Anderson, M.L., Tyll, L.T., & Thompson, R.S. (2006). Healthy steps in an integrated delivery system: Child and parent outcomes at 30 months. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(8), 793–800.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kelly, N.R., Huffman, L.C., Mendoza, F.S., & Robinson, T.N. (2003). Effects of a videotape to increase use of poison control centers by low-income and spanish-speaking families: A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 111(1), 21–26.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kendrick, D., Marsh, P., Fielding, K., & Miller, P. (1999). Preventing injuries in children: Cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. British Journal of Medicine, 318, 980–983.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kendrick, D., Groom, L., Stewart, J., Watson, M., Mulvaney, C., & Casterton, R. (2007). "Risk Watch": Cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating an injury prevention program. Injury Prevention, 13(2), 93–98.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lacouture, P., Minisci, M., Gouveia, W.A., & Lovejoy, F.H. (1978). Evaluation of a community based poison education program. Clinical Toxicology, 13(5), 623–629.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LeBailley, S., Freel, K., Hicks-Bartlett, S., Kirschenman, S., Ritts-Benally, J., & Sasicki, J. (1990). The children's safety research project (pp. Abstract). Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics.

 Google Scholar

LeBlanc, J.C., Pless, I.B., King, W.J., Bawden, H., Bernard-Bonnin, A.-C., Klassen, T., & Tenenbein, M. (2006). Home safety measures and the risk of unintentional injury among young children: A multicentre case-control study. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175(8), 883–887.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McDonald, E.M., Solomon, B., Shields, W., Serwint, J.R., Jacobsen, H., Weaver, N.L., … Gielen, A.C. (2005). Evaluation of kiosk-based tailoring to promote household safety behaviors in an urban pediatric primary care practice. Patient Education and Counseling, 58, 168–181.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nansel, T.R., Weaver, N.L., Jacobsen, H.A., Glasheen, C., & Kreuter, M.W. (2008). Preventing unintentional pediatric injuries: A tailored intervention for parents and providers. Health Education Research, 23(4), 656–669.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Odendaal, W., van Niekerk, A., Jordaan, E., & Seedat, M. (2009). The impact of a home visitation programme on household hazards associated with unintentional childhood injuries: A randomised controlled trial. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(1), 183–190. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2008.10.009

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Paul, C.L., Sanson-Fisher, R.W., & Redman, S. (1994). Preventing accidental injury to young children in the home using volunteers. Health Promotion International, 9(4), 241–249

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Petridou, E., Tolma, E., Dessypris, N., & Tricholpoulos, D. (1997). A controlled evaluation of a community injury prevention project in two Greek Islands. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(1), 173–179.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Phelan, K.J., Khoury, J., Xu, Y., Liddy, S., Hornung, R., & Lanphear, B.P. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of home injury hazard reduction: The HOME injury study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165(4), 339–345.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Posner, J.C., Hawkins, L.A., Garcia-Espana, F., & Durbin, D.R. (2004). A randomized, clinical trial of a home safety intervention based in an emergency department setting. Pediatrics, 113(6), 1603–1608.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reich, S.M., Penner, E.K., & Duncan, G.J. (2011). Using baby books to increase new mothers' safety practices. Academic Pediatrics, 11(1), 34–43. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2010.12.006

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scherz, R.G. (1968). Childhood poisonings from medications: Three prevention programs that worked. Military Medicine, 133(11), 911–913.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schwarz, D.F., Grisso, J.A., Miles, C., Holmes, J.H., & Sutton, R.L. (1993). An injury prevention program in an Urban African-American community. American Journal of Public Health, 83(5), 675–680.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steele, P.S., & Spyker, D.A. (1985a). Symposium on injuries and injury prevention: Poisonings. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 32(1), 77–86.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steele, P.S., & Spyker, D.A. (1985b). Poisonings. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 32(1), 77–86.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Swart, L., van Niekerk, A., Seedat, M., & Jordaan, E. (2008). Paraprofessional home visitation program to prevent childhood unintentional injuries in low-income communities: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Injury Prevention, 14(3), 164–169.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Watson, M., Kendrick, D., Coupland, C., Woods, A., Futers, D., & Robinson, J. (2005). Providing child safety equipment to prevent injuries: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 330(7484), 178.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wissow, L.S., Warshaw, M.A., Turner, K., & Wilson, M.H. (1989). Home hazards in the inner city. Paper presented at the First World Conference on Accident and Injury Prevention., Stockholm, Sweden.

 Google Scholar

Woolf, A., Lewander, W., Filippone, G., & Lovejoy, F.H. (1987). Prevention of childhood poisoning: Efficacy of an educational program carried out in an emergency clinic. Pediatrics, 80(3), 359–363.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woolf, A., Saperstein, A., & Forjuoh, S. (1992). Poisoining prevention knowledge and practices of parents after a childhood poisoning incident. Pediatrics, 90, 867–870.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhao, C.H., Qiu, H.S., & Qiu, H.X. (2006). Interventions to prevent accidental injuries in children between 7 and 13 years of age. Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics, 8(4), 331–333. [Chinese].

 Google Scholar