CMAJ • October 10, 2006; 175 (8). First published September 22, 2006; doi:10.1503/cmaj.050592
© 2006 CMA Media Inc. or its licensors
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
cmaj.050592v1
175/8/883    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBlanc, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Tenenbein, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LeBlanc, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Tenenbein, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Injury
Right arrow Poisoning
Right arrow Children
Right arrowRelated Articles


Research

Home safety measures and the risk of unintentional injury among young children: a multicentre case–control study

John C. LeBlanc, I. Barry Pless, W. James King, Harry Bawden, Anne-Claude Bernard-Bonnin, Terry Klassen and Milton Tenenbein

From the IWK Health Centre and the Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (LeBlanc); the Department of Pediatrics, McGill University, Montréal, Que. (Pless); the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. (King); the Department of Psychology, IWK Health Centre, and the Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Bawden); the Hôpital Sainte-Justine and the Department of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Que. (Bernard-Bonnin); the Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Klassen); and the Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Tenenbein)

Correspondence to: Dr. John C. LeBlanc, IWK Health Centre, 5850 University Ave., PO Box 9700, Halifax NS B3K 6R8; fax 902 470-6913; john.leblanc{at}dal.ca

Background: Young children may sustain injuries when exposed to certain hazards in the home. To better understand the relation between several childproofing strategies and the risk of injuries to children in the home, we undertook a multicentre case–control study in which we compared hazards in the homes of children with and without injuries.

Methods: We conducted this case-control study using records from 5 pediatric hospital emergency departments for the 2-year period 1995–1996. The 351 case subjects were children aged 7 years and less who presented with injuries from falls, burns or scalds, ingestions or choking. The matched control subjects were children who presented during the same period with acute non-injury-related conditions. A home visitor, blinded to case-control status, assessed 19 injury hazards at the children's homes.

Results: Hazards found in the homes included baby walkers (21% of homes with infants), no functioning smoke alarm (17% of homes) and no fire extinguisher (51% of homes). Cases did not differ from controls in the mean proportion of home hazards. After controlling for siblings, maternal education and employment, we found that cases differed from controls for 5 hazards: the presence of a baby walker (odds ratio [OR] 9.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–71.0), the presence of choking hazards within a child's reach (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0–3.7), no child-resistant lids in bathroom (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0–2.5), no smoke alarm (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4–7.7) and no functioning smoke alarm (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0–2.8).

Interpretation: Homes of children with injuries differed from those of children without injuries in the proportions of specific hazards for falls, choking, poisoning and burns, with a striking difference noted for the presence of a baby walker. In addition to counselling parents about specific hazards, clinicians should consider that the presence of some hazards may indicate an increased risk for home injuries beyond those directly related to the hazard found. Families with any home hazard may be candidates for interventions to childproof against other types of home hazards.



Related Articles

Trends in rates of death from unintentional injury among Canadian children in urban areas: influence of socioeconomic status
Catherine S. Birken, Patricia C. Parkin, Teresa To, and Colin Macarthur
Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2006 175: 867. [Full Text] [PDF]

Injury in childhood: a vexingly simple problem
Andrew W. Howard
Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2006 175: 899. [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
PediatricsHome page
A. L. D'Souza, N. G. Nelson, and L. B. McKenzie
Pediatric Burn Injuries Treated in US Emergency Departments Between 1990 and 2006
Pediatrics, November 1, 2009; 124(5): 1424 - 1430.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
cfpHome page
Bulletin Board
Can Fam Physician, January 1, 2007; 53(1): 101 - 102.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CMAJHome page
A. W. Howard
Injury in childhood: a vexingly simple problem
Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 10, 2006; 175(8): 899 - 899.
[Full Text] [PDF]