A cost-benefit analysis of the community-based injury prevention programme in Motala, Sweden—a WHO Safe Community

Systematic review of unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations 2010-2019 and comparison to 1998-2009

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluation studies (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) can provide insight into which injury prevention interventions maximize available resources to improve health outcomes. A previous systematic review summarized 48 unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations published during 1998-2009, providing a valuable overview of that evidence for researchers and decisionmakers. The aim of this study was to summarize the content and quality of recent (2010-2019) economic evaluations of unintentional injury prevention interventions and compare to the previous publication period (1998-2009).

METHODS

Peer-reviewed English-language journal articles describing public health unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations published January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019 were identified using index terms in multiple databases. Injury causes, interventions, study methods, and results were summarized. Reporting on key methods elements (e.g., economic perspective, time horizon, discounting, currency year, etc.) was assessed. Reporting quality was compared between the recent and previous publication periods.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight recent economic evaluation studies were assessed. Consistent with the systematic review on this topic for the previous publication period, falls and motor vehicle traffic injury prevention were the most common study subjects. Just half of studies from the recent publication period reported all key methods elements, although this represents an improvement compared to the previous publication period (25 %).

CONCLUSION

Most economic evaluations of unintentional injury prevention interventions address just two injury causes. Better adherence to health economic evaluation reporting standards may enhance comparability across studies and increase the likelihood that this type of evidence is included in decision-making related to unintentional injury prevention.

Prevalence of Frailty Assessed by Fried and Kihon Checklist Indexes in a Prospective Cohort Study: Design and Demographics of the Kyoto-Kameoka Longitudinal Study

OBJECTIVE

The Kyoto-Kameoka Study was launched in 2011-2012 to identify the associations among food intake, nutritional status, physical activity, oral function, quality of life or social capital, the use of long-term care insurance (LTCI) system, and healthy lifespan in community-dwelling older people as a part of the World Health Organization Safe Community program.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study, reporting baseline demographics (cross-sectional data).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted 2 mailed self-administered questionnaire surveys; one is a complete population survey with a comprehensive survey of needs in the sphere of daily life (NSDL) that included 2 different frailty indexes, the Kihon Checklist (KCL) and the Fried phenotype, socioeconomic status, general and psychological health, and social relationships; followed by the more detailed Health and Nutrition Survey. A slightly modified NSDL survey was conducted again in 2013. Survival time, LTCI certification, and medical and long-term care costs after the baseline survey will be followed.

RESULTS

Of 18,231 NSDL questionnaires distributed, 13,294 people responded (response rate: 72.92%; mean age 73.7 ± 6.4 and 75.1 ± 7.2 years for men and women, respectively; 12,054 people without and 1240 with LTCI certification). In people without LTCI, the proportion of robust, prefrail, and frail were 30.3%, 59.8%, and 9.9% in men and 25.3%, 64.7%, and 10.0% in women, according to the Fried index. The proportion of frail people as defined by KCL ≥7 was 30.8% in men and 33.3% in women.

CONCLUSIONS

The study is the first to document frailty prevalence using both Fried and KCL measures with a complete city population survey among older Japanese in the community as a part of World Health Organization Safe Community program. The study is expected to provide valuable evidence of the effects of lifestyle habits on long-term care prevention and healthy life span.

Safe communities in China as a strategy for injury prevention and safety promotion programmes in the era of rapid economic growth

Due to its rapid economic development, China is facing a huge health, social, and economic burden resulting from injuries. The study's objective was to examine Safe Communities in China as a strategy for injury prevention and safety promotion programmes in the era of rapid economic growth. Literature searches in English and Chinese, which included grey literature, were performed on the Chinese Journal Full-text Search System and Medline, using the words "Safe Community", "injury", "economics", and "prevention". The results showed that the existing 35 recognized members of the International Safe Community Network have not placed due emphasis on suicide prevention, which is one of the leading problems in both rural and urban China. A few groups, such as children, the elderly, cyclists, and pedestrians, have received due emphasis, while other vulnerable groups, such as migrant workers, motorcyclists, students, players, and farmers have not received the necessary attention from the Safe Community perspective. As the evidence describes, Safe Communities in China can be a very effective strategy for injury prevention, but four aspects need to be strengthened in the future: (1) establish and strengthen the policy and regulations in terms of injury prevention at the national level; (2) create a system to involve professional organizations and personnel in projects; (3) consider the economic development status of different parts of China; and (4) intentional injury prevention should receive greater attention.

Motala Municipality - a sustainable Safe Community in Sweden

An extensive research project concerning injury prevention was planned and initiated in Motala Municipality in the early 1980s. This article summarises 25 years of work for injury prevention and safety promotion in Motala. Evaluation of both process and effect were conducted based on a quasi-experimental study design, as well as cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of interventions. Initial evaluations results showed an annual incidence of injuries of 118.9/1000 citizens in 1983/1984 consisting of injuries at home (35%), sports injuries (18.9%), injuries at work (13.7%), traffic-related injuries (12.8%) and other injuries (19.5%). The annual social economic costs of injuries were estimated at 116 million Swedish crowns (SEK). By 1989, after two years of preventive work, the incidence of injuries was reduced by 13%. The greatest decrease was among the moderate severity category of injuries (41%). The social economic costs were thereby reduced by 21 million SEK per year. Since then, work with injury prevention has continued and annual evaluations have shown that the incidence of injuries, with some fluctuation, has continued to decrease up to the latest evaluation in 2008. The total decrease during the study period was 37%. This study shows that community-based injury prevention work according to the Safe Community model is a successful and cost-effective way of reducing injuries in the local community.

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) 'safe communities' approach to injury prevention has been embraced around the world as a model for co-ordinating community efforts to enhance safety and reduce injury. Approximately 150 communities throughout the world have formal 'Safe Communities' designation. It is of public health interest to determine to what degree the model is successful, and whether it reduces injury rates. This Cochrane Review is an update of a previous published version.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the WHO Safe Communities model to prevent injury in whole populations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and ZETOC. We handsearched selected journals and contacted key people from each WHO Safe Community. The last search was December 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Included studies were those conducted within a WHO Safe Community that reported changes in population injury rates within the community compared to a control community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included evaluations for 21 communities from five countries in two geographical regions in the world: Austria, Sweden and Norway, and Australia and New Zealand. Although positive results were reported for some communities, there was no consistent relationship between being a WHO designated Safe Community and subsequent changes in observed injury rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is marked inconsistency in the results of the studies included in this systematic review. While the frequency of injury in some study communities did reduce following their designation as a WHO Safe Community, there remains insufficient evidence from which to draw definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the model.The lack of consistency in results may be due to the heterogeneity of the approaches to implementing the model, varying efficacy of activities and strategies, varying intensity of implementation and methodological limitations in evaluations. While all communities included in the review fulfilled the WHO Safe Community criteria, these criteria were too general to prescribe a standardised programme of activity or evaluation methodology.Adequate documentation describing how various Safe Communities implemented the model was limited, making it unclear which factors affected success. Where a reduction in injury rates was not reported, lack of information makes it difficult to distinguish whether this was due to problems with the model or with the way in which it was implemented.

Safe Community in different settings

This paper describes the Safe Community concept and how communities aspired to safety through a structured, collaborative approach rather than a community that is already perfectly safe. The Safe Community movement started in Sweden at the end of the 1980s and was based on community-based injury prevention activities. Safe Communities are the communities that meet a set of 12 criteria (later changed to six indicators) set out by the WHO Collaborating Centre (WHO CC) on Community Safety Promotion at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm. The communities may apply to the WHO CC to be designated as an official member of the WHO International Safe Community Network. To date, 83 communities around the world have been designated as members of the Safe Community Network, ranging in population from 1000 to nearly 2 million. Lidkjöping in Sweden was the first designated safe community in 1989 and Rapla in Estonia was the last, designated in October 2004. The movement recognizes that it is the people who not only live, learn, work and play in a community but also best understand their community's specific problems, needs, assets and capacities. Their involvement and commitment are critical factors in identifying and mobilizing resources so as to create an effective, comprehensive and coordinated community-based action on unintentional and intentional injuries.

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations

BACKGROUND

The safe communities approach has been embraced around the world as a model for coordinating community efforts to enhance safety and reduce injury. Over 80 communities throughout the world have been formally designated as 'Safe Communities' by the World Health Organization. It is of public health interest to determine to what degree the model is successful, and whether its application does indeed reduce injury rates in communities to which it is introduced.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the Safe Communities model to prevent injury in whole populations, or targeted sub-groups of populations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy was based on electronic searches, handsearches of selected journals, snowballing from reference lists of selected publications and contacting a key person from each WHO-designated Safe Community.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Included studies were those conducted within a WHO Safe Community that reported changes in population injury rates within the community compared to a control community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was not appropriate, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Only seven WHO Safe Communities, of more than 80 worldwide, have undertaken controlled evaluations using objective sources of injury data. These communities represent only four countries from two geographical regions in the world: the Scandinavian countries of Sweden and Norway and the Pacific nations of Australia and New Zealand. Safe Communities in Sweden and Norway have resulted in significant reductions in injury rates. The Australian and New Zealand communities have been unable to replicate the same level of success.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests the WHO Safe Communities model is effective in reducing injuries in whole populations. However, important methodological limitations exist in all studies from which evidence can be obtained. A lack of reported detail makes it unclear which factors facilitate or hinder a programme's success, and makes uncertain, whether the success of any particular application of the model is necessarily replicable in other communities. In evaluated programmes that did not report significant decreases in injury rates, this lack of information makes it difficult to distinguish between evidence of no effect of the model, or no evidence of effect. The four countries that have evaluated their Safe Communities with a sufficiently rigorous study design have higher economic wealth and health standards and lower injury rates than much of the world. No evaluations were available from other parts of the world, despite the designation of WHO Safe Communities in countries such as South Africa, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, Canada, UK and USA. Generalisation of results of studies conducted in just four countries, to the international population needs to be done with caution. There is a need for more high-quality, methodologically strong evaluations of the model in a range of diverse communities and detailed reporting of implementation processes.

Injury status and perspectives on developing community safety promotion in China

The objective of this paper is to introduce the epidemiology of injuries in China, and then consider the development of safe communities in regard to injury prevention and safety promotion. The disease spectrum has changed in recent decades in the People's Republic of China. Both in cities and rural areas, injury has become the fifth leading cause of death. At least 800 000 people die from injury each year, and 50 million non-fatal injuries occur, of which 2.3 million lead to disability of varying degrees of severity. The average injury-related death rate in China from 1990 to 1997 was 66 per 100 000, which accounts for 11% of total deaths. The potential years of life lost (PYLL) of injury accounts for 24% of the total, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) account for 17%. Main injury causes of death, in descending order, are: suicide, traffic accident, drowning, falling, poisoning, homicide, burn and scald, and iatrogenic injury. Considering China's current injury status and its rapid societal change, injury prevention and safety promotion need to be strengthened further, and there is a special need for the development of Safe Communities programmes. The prevention of injuries through safety promotion has been increasingly focussed on over recent decades. The WHO Safe Community model is recognized as representing an effective and long-term approach to the prevention of injuries at a local level, and has been beneficially applied all over the world. A programme may cover several aspects of injury prevention and safety promotion simultaneously, or only include one or two aspects. In a Safe Community programme in China, children, the elderly, cyclists and their passengers, and farmers should be among the prioritized target populations. However, multi-focussed inter-sectoral programmes have been shown to have additional effects to distinct sectoral programmes.