Implementation fidelity of the 'Stay One Step Ahead' home safety intervention: a mixed-methods analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess implementation fidelity of the Stay One Step Ahead (SOSA), a complex intervention which was delivered by health visiting teams, children's centres, and family mentors and was aimed at preventing unintentional home injuries in children under 5 in disadvantaged communities. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation fidelity of the SOSA intervention. METHODS: A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity was used to triangulate data from questionnaires and semistructured interviews with parents and practitioners, observations of parent and practitioner contacts, and meeting documents. Quantitative data were analysed using logistic regression and descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. RESULTS: Parents in intervention wards were more likely to receive home safety advice from a practitioner than those living in matched control wards. Monthly safety messages and family mentor home safety activities were delivered with greater fidelity than other intervention components. Content most frequently adapted included the home safety checklist used by health visiting teams, and safety weeks delivered at children's centres. CONCLUSION: Consistent with similarly complex interventions, SOSA was delivered with variable fidelity in a challenging environment. The findings add to the body of evidence on implementation fidelity of home injury prevention programmes, providing important information for future intervention development and delivery.

Cost-effectiveness of England's national 'Safe At Home' scheme for reducing hospital admissions for unintentional injury in children aged under 5.

BACKGROUND: Injuries in children aged under 5 years most commonly occur in the home and disproportionately affect those living in the most disadvantaged communities. The 'Safe at Home' (SAH) national home safety equipment scheme, which ran in England between 2009 and 2011, has been shown to reduce injury-related hospital admissions, but there is little evidence of cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a health and local government perspective. Measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per hospital admission averted (ICER) and cost-offset ratio (COR), comparing SAH expenditure to savings in admission expenditure. The study period was split into three periods: T1 (years 0-2, implementation); T2 (years 3-4) and T3 (years 5-6). Analyses were conducted for T2 versus T1 and T3 versus T1. RESULTS: Total cost of SAH was £9 518 066. 202 223 hospital admissions in the children occurred during T1-3, costing £3 320 000. Comparing T3 to T1 SAH reduced admission expenditure by £924 per month per local authority and monthly admission rates by 0.5 per local authority per month compared with control areas. ICER per admission averted was £4209 for T3 versus T1, with a COR of £0.29, suggesting that 29p was returned in savings on admission expenditure for every pound spent on SAH. CONCLUSION: SAH was effective at reducing hospital admissions due to injury and did result in some cost recovery when taking into admissions only. Further analysis of its cost-effectiveness, including emergency healthcare, primary care attendances and wider societal costs, is likely to improve the return on investment further.

Effectiveness of systematically delivered evidence-based home safety promotion to improve child home safety practices: a controlled before-and-after study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of systematically delivered evidence-based home safety promotion for improving child home safety practices. DESIGN: Controlled before-and-after study. SETTING: Nine electoral wards in Nottingham, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 361 families with children aged 2-7 months at recruitment living in four intervention wards with high health, education and social need; and 401 in five matched control wards. INTERVENTION: Evidence-based home safety promotion delivered by health visiting teams, family mentors and children's centres including 24 monthly safety messages; home safety activity sessions; quarterly 'safety weeks'; home safety checklists. OUTCOMES: Primary: composite measure comprising having a working smoke alarm, storing poisons out of reach and having a stairgate. Secondary: other home safety practices; medically attended injuries. Parents completed questionnaires at 12 and 24 months after recruitment plus optional three monthly injury questionnaires. RESULTS: At 24 months there was no significant difference between groups in the primary outcome (55.8% vs 48.8%; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.55) or medically attended injury rates (incidence rate ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.56), but intervention families were more likely to store poisons safely (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.07), have a fire escape plan (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.08), use a fireguard or have no fire (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.63 to 6.16) and perform more safety practices (ß 0.46, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic evidence-based home safety promotion in areas with substantial need increases adoption of some safety practices. Funders should consider commissioning evidence-based multicomponent child home safety interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN31210493.

Impact of the national home safety equipment scheme 'Safe At Home' on hospital admissions for unintentional injury in children under 5: a controlled interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unintentional home injuries are a leading cause of preventable death in young children. Safety education and equipment provision improve home safety practices, but their impact on injuries is less clear. Between 2009 and 2011, a national home safety equipment scheme was implemented in England (Safe At Home), targeting high-injury-rate areas and socioeconomically disadvantaged families with children under 5. This provided a 'natural experiment' for evaluating the scheme's impact on hospital admissions for unintentional injuries. METHODS: Controlled interrupted time series analysis of unintentional injury hospital admission rates in small areas (Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs)) in England where the scheme was implemented (intervention areas, n=9466) and matched with LSOAs in England and Wales where it was not implemented (control areas, n=9466), with subgroup analyses by density of equipment provision. RESULTS: 57 656 homes receiving safety equipment were included in the analysis. In the 2 years after the scheme ended, monthly admission rates declined in intervention areas (-0.33% (-0.47% to -0.18%)) but did not decline in control areas (0.04% (-0.11%-0.19%), p value for difference in trend=0.001). Greater reductions in admission rates were seen as equipment provision density increased. Effects were not maintained beyond 2 years after the scheme ended. CONCLUSIONS: A national home safety equipment scheme was associated with a reduction in injury-related hospital admissions in children under 5 in the 2 years after the scheme ended. Providing a higher number of items of safety equipment appears to be more effective in reducing injury rates than providing fewer items.