| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 casecontrol 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 19951996. 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] 1.171.0), the presence of choking hazards within a child's reach (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.03.7), no child-resistant lids in bathroom (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.02.5), no smoke alarm (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.47.7) and no functioning smoke alarm (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.02.8).
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
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
Bulletin Board Can Fam Physician, January 1, 2007; 53(1): 101 - 102. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. W. Howard Injury in childhood: a vexingly simple problem Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 10, 2006; 175(8): 899 - 899. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||