3.9 Article

Randomized trial of enhanced anticipatory guidance for injury prevention

期刊

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.155.1.42

关键词

-

资金

  1. PHS HHS [MCJ-240638] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To develop and evaluate an injury prevention anticipatory guidance training program for pediatric residents. Design: Thirty-one residents were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Both groups attended a 1-hour seminar about injury prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics TIPP (The Injury Prevention Program) materials. The intervention group also received 5 hours of experiential instruction on injury prevention content and counseling skills (SAFE Counseling Framework). Families with infants from birth to age 6 months were enrolled in the study (N = 196); they were followed up until the child was aged 12 to 18 months. Data were collected by means of baseline and follow-up interviews, audiotapes of medical visits, parent exit surveys, and home observations. Setting: A hospital-based continuity clinic that serves families living in low-income, inner-city neighborhoods. Outcomes: Physician counseling and parent satisfaction, knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. Results: Parents seen by physicians in the intervention group received significantly more injury prevention counseling for 5 of the 6 safety practices, and they were significantly more satisfied with the help their physicians provided on safety topics. They were no less satisfied with their physicians' counseling on other anticipatory guidance topics. Parents' knowledge, beliefs, and home safety behaviors did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The frequency and impact of pediatric counseling can be enhanced by experiential training that targets specific injury hazards. Because low-income families face many barriers to carrying out the recommended safety practices, supplemental strategies are needed to ensure safer homes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据