Felix A. Achana
The effectiveness of different interventions to promote poison prevention behaviours in households with children: a network meta-analysis
Achana, Felix A.; Sutton, Alex J.; Kendrick, Denise; Wynn, Persephone; Young, Ben; Jones, David R.; Hubbard, Stephanie J.; Cooper, Nicola J.
Alex J. Sutton
DENISE KENDRICK email@example.com
Professor of Primary Care Research
David R. Jones
Stephanie J. Hubbard
Nicola J. Cooper
Background: There is evidence from 2 previous meta-analyses that interventions to promote poison prevention behaviours are effective in increasing a range of poison prevention practices in households with children. The published meta-analyses compared any intervention against a “usual care or no intervention” which potentially limits the usefulness of the analysis to decision makers. We aim to use network meta-analysis to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions to increase prevalence of safe storage of i) Medicines only, ii) Other household products only, iii) Poisons (both medicines and non-medicines), iv) Poisonous plants; and v) Possession of poison control centre (PCC) telephone number in households with children.
Methods: Data on the effectiveness of poison prevention interventions was extracted from primary studies identified in 2 newly-undertaken systematic reviews. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using a random effects network meta-analysis model.
Results: 28 of the 47 primary studies identified were included in the analysis. Compared to usual care intervention, the intervention with education and low cost/free equipment elements was most effective in promoting safe storage of medicines (odds ratio 2.51, 95% credible interval 1.01 to 6.00) while interventions with education, low cost/free equipment, home safety inspection and fitting components were most effective in promoting safe storage of other household products (2.52, 1.12 to 7.13), safe storage of poisons (11.10, 1.60 to 141.50) and possession of PCC number (38.82, 2.19 to 687.10). No one intervention package was more effective than the others in promoting safe storage of poisonous plants.
Conclusion: The most effective interventions varied by poison prevention practice, but education alone was not the most effective intervention for any poison prevention practice. Commissioners and providers of poison prevention interventions should tailor the interventions they commission or provide to the poison prevention practices they wish to promote.
Achana, F. A., Sutton, A. J., Kendrick, D., Wynn, P., Young, B., Jones, D. R., …Cooper, N. J. (2015). The effectiveness of different interventions to promote poison prevention behaviours in households with children: a network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(4), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121122
|Journal Article Type||Article|
|Publication Date||Apr 20, 2015|
|Deposit Date||Oct 26, 2015|
|Publicly Available Date||Oct 26, 2015|
|Publisher||Public Library of Science|
|Peer Reviewed||Peer Reviewed|
|Keywords||Poison, Prevention Behaviours, Children, Network Meta-Analysis|
|Related Public URLs||http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|
|Copyright Statement||Copyright information regarding this work can be found at the following address: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0|
Achana PLoS One 2015.pdf
Copyright information regarding this work can be found at the following address: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
You might also like
Lung cancer screening: does pulmonary nodule detection affect a range of smoking behaviours?