A randomized controlled trial of the effect of providing information on accidental injury admissions and their costs to Primary Care Groups and Trusts

Coupland, Carol A. C.; Savelyich, Boki S. P.; Hippisley-Cox, Julia; Kendrick, Denise; Groom, Lindsay; Cross, Elizabeth

doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi016

SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.

RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ

CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

A randomized controlled trial of the effect of providing information on accidental injury admissions and their costs to Primary Care Groups and Trusts
Citation	Coupland CAC, Savelyich BS, Hippisley-Cox J, Kendrick D, Groom L, Cross E. Fam. Pract. 2005; 22(3): 249-252.
Affiliation	Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. carol.coupland@nottingham.ac.uk
Copyright	(Copyright © 2005, Oxford University Press)
DOI	10.1093/fampra/cmi016
PMID	15805130
Abstract	BACKGROUND: Primary Care Groups and Trusts (PCG/Ts) are responsible for improving the health of local populations, but there is little evidence of their strategic involvement in accident prevention. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of providing information on local accidental injuries to PCG/Ts on the development of accident prevention strategies. METHODS: The study is a randomized controlled trial in PCG/Ts in the former Trent Region. Intervention PCG/Ts were sent profiles containing PCG/T specific information on hospital admissions for accidental injury and their costs and on accident prevention interventions. Health promotion leads were surveyed at baseline and three and fifteen months. The primary outcome was whether the PCG/T had a written accident prevention strategy. Secondary outcome measures included other accident prevention activities, prioritization of accident prevention, and knowledge and attitudes towards accident prevention. RESULTS: At three months 38% of PCG/Ts in the intervention arm had a written accident prevention strategy, compared with 42% in the control arm [difference -4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -31% to 25%]. At fifteen months these values were 55% in the intervention arm and 50% in the control arm (difference 5%, CI -24% to 33%). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Providing profiles containing information on accidental injuries to PCG/Ts did not significantly increase the development of accident prevention strategies, however this study only had sufficient power to detect substantial changes. Larger national studies would be required to detect moderate effects of tailored packages in changing PCG/T behaviour.