Table 2

Target injuries, sample size and effects demonstrated

Target safety behavioursSample sizePositive effect demonstratedNo effect demonstrated
Clamp and Kendrick16

  • Fire, electric outlet, sharp object, poison safety and injuries from doors

  • 165

  • Use of fireguards, smoke alarms, electric outlet covers, locks on cupboards and door slam devices

  • Safe practice in storage of sharp objects and medicines, and safety regarding windows, fireplaces, sockets, smoke alarms and door slams

  • No differences in proportion of families regarding stairway safety behaviour or storage of cleaning materials.

Kendrick et al 17

  • Any unintentional injury seen at an emergency department.

  • Equipment provided: stair gates, fireguards, cupboard locks and smoke alarms.

  • 1124 intervention.

  • 1028 control.

  • More confident in dealing with choking incidents and more likely to know correct action for bleach ingestion.

  • No difference in injury frequencies.

  • No difference in secondary outcome measures.

  • No differences between in scores for perceptions of risk of injury or risk of hazards.

Gielen et al 18

  • Hot water, smoke alarm, baby walker, stair, poison and safety.

  • 196

  • No differences in knowledge or behaviours.

Nansel et al 19

  • Car, burn/fire, drowning, poison and fall

  • 85 intervention

  • 89 control

  • Greater adoption of home and car safety behaviours among group receiving tailored information

Mock et al 20

  • Bike helmets, hot water temperature, smoke detector, child passenger and road traffic safety

  • 1124 children before counselling

  • 625 after it had been given

  • Increase in mean per cent safe response scores

  • Improved use of bicycle helmets in middle and lower socioeconomic groups

  • •Increased use of car seats by children aged 0–4 years in lower socioeconomic group

  • Even with improvement, overall use of safety devices suboptimal even after counselling with discrepancies between socioeconomic strata

  • Minimal to no changes seen regarding knowledge on crossing roads safely, burn and prevention

Tan et al 21

  • Infant walkers

  • 708

  • Decreased walker use after intervention

  • No difference in walker injuries between groups

Watson et al 22

  • Falls, fires, poisoning and window falls

  • 3428 families (3995 children)

  • More likely to be safe with stairs, smoke alarms, windows and storage of cleaning products/sharp objects

  • Intervention group had higher attendance rate for injury in primary care, but no other differences injury outcomes seen

McDonald et al 23

  • Smoke alarm, poison, fall and child passenger safety

  • 70 intervention

  • 74 control

  • More knowledge about inappropriateness of young children riding in the front seat of a car, less likely to believe that teaching a child to mind you is the best way to prevent injuries and more likely to report that they have syrup of ipecac and know how to use it*

  • No difference in groups for seven other safety items and three other belief items

Kendrick et al 24

  • Baby walker safety

  • 539 intervention

  • 635 control

  • Less likely to: own or use walker, plan to use walker with their next child or agree that walkers keep children safe

  • Some evidence they were less likely to recommend walker to friend or agree that they help children to walk more quickly

Sangvai et al 25

  • Child safety seats

  • Smoke detectors

  • Safe storage of hazardous substances and poisons

  • Tap water temperature

  • Gun storage

  • 160 intervention

  • 159 control

  • More likely to have: smoke detectors present and functional and hazardous substances not found in low cabinets

  • No difference in rate of medically attended injuries

Pless et al 26

  • Knowledge and behaviours related to window blind cords and cords from clothing drawstrings

  • 369 intervention

  • 439 control

  • No difference in behaviour (cutting cords) or injury related to window blind cords or clothing drawstrings

Nansel et al 27

  • Car, burn, fall, poison, airway obstruction and drowning

  • 305 (three arms)

  • More likely to adopt new injury prevention behaviour

Powell et al 28

  • Home—falls, burns and drowning

  • 371

  • Increase in education in both groups following discussion

van Beelen et al 29

  • Falls, poisoning, drowning and burns

  • 1292

  • Increase in safe behaviour for stairs, storage of cleaning products, bathing of child, drinking of hot fluids, using rear hotplates and composite safety score

  • No significant differences for other specific behaviours

Franz et al 30

  • Crib, hot water and child passenger safety

  • 84 (pretest and post-test)

  • Increased knowledge

Brixey et al 31

  • Any unintentional injury

  • 1368

  • No difference in groups; very small sample of injured patients

  • ↵Since the publication of McDonald et al 23 2005, syrup of ipecac has no longer been recommended to be used by parents.