1
|
Jones M, Hill T, Coupland C, Kendrick D, Akbari A, Rodgers S, Watson MC, Tyrrell E, Merrill S, Martin A, Orton E. Cost-effectiveness of England's national 'Safe At Home' scheme for reducing hospital admissions for unintentional injury in children aged under 5. Inj Prev 2023; 29:158-165. [PMID: 36600567 DOI: 10.1136/ip-2022-044698] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2022] [Accepted: 11/06/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Injuries in children aged under 5 years most commonly occur in the home and disproportionately affect those living in the most disadvantaged communities. The 'Safe at Home' (SAH) national home safety equipment scheme, which ran in England between 2009 and 2011, has been shown to reduce injury-related hospital admissions, but there is little evidence of cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS Cost-effectiveness analysis from a health and local government perspective. Measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per hospital admission averted (ICER) and cost-offset ratio (COR), comparing SAH expenditure to savings in admission expenditure. The study period was split into three periods: T1 (years 0-2, implementation); T2 (years 3-4) and T3 (years 5-6). Analyses were conducted for T2 versus T1 and T3 versus T1. RESULTS Total cost of SAH was £9 518 066. 202 223 hospital admissions in the children occurred during T1-3, costing £3 320 000. Comparing T3 to T1 SAH reduced admission expenditure by £924 per month per local authority and monthly admission rates by 0.5 per local authority per month compared with control areas. ICER per admission averted was £4209 for T3 versus T1, with a COR of £0.29, suggesting that 29p was returned in savings on admission expenditure for every pound spent on SAH. CONCLUSION SAH was effective at reducing hospital admissions due to injury and did result in some cost recovery when taking into admissions only. Further analysis of its cost-effectiveness, including emergency healthcare, primary care attendances and wider societal costs, is likely to improve the return on investment further.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Jones
- Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
| | - Trevor Hill
- Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
| | - Carol Coupland
- Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
| | - Denise Kendrick
- Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
| | - Ashley Akbari
- Faculty of Medicine, Health, & Life Science, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, UK
| | - Sarah Rodgers
- Department of Public Health, Policy & Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Edward Tyrrell
- Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Sheila Merrill
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), Edgbaston, UK
| | - Ashley Martin
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), Edgbaston, UK
| | - Elizabeth Orton
- Unit of Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bryant M, Burton W, Collinson M, Farrin A, Nixon J, Stevens J, Roberts K, Foy R, Rutter H, Copsey B, Hartley S, Tubeuf S, Brown J. A cluster RCT and process evaluation of an implementation optimisation intervention to promote parental engagement enrolment and attendance in a childhood obesity prevention programme: results of the Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial. Trials 2021; 22:773. [PMID: 34740373 PMCID: PMC8569980 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05757-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2021] [Accepted: 10/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Poor and variable implementation of childhood obesity prevention programmes reduces their population impact and sustainability. We drew upon ethnographic work to develop a multi-level, theory-based implementation optimisation intervention. This intervention aimed to promote parental enrolment and attendance at HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young), a UK community obesity prevention programme, by changing behaviours of children’s centre and local authority stakeholders. Methods We evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation optimisation intervention on HENRY programme enrolment and attendance over a 12-month implementation period in a cluster randomised controlled trial. We randomised 20 local government authorities (with 126 children’s centres) to HENRY plus the implementation optimisation intervention or to HENRY alone. Primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of centres enrolling at least eight parents per programme and (2) the proportion of centres with a minimum of 75% of parents attending at least five of eight sessions per programme. Trial analyses adjusted for stratification factors (pre-randomisation implementation of HENRY, local authority size, deprivation) and allowed for cluster design. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation used qualitative interviews and routine monitoring to explain trial results. Results Neither primary outcome differed significantly between groups; 17.8% of intervention centres and 18.0% of control centres achieved the parent enrolment target (adjusted difference − 1.2%; 95% CI − 19.5%, 17.1%); 17.1% of intervention centres and 13.9% of control centres achieved the attendance target (adjusted difference 1.2%; 95% CI − 15.7%, 18.1%). Unexpectedly, the trial coincided with substantial national service restructuring, including centre closures and reduced funds. Some commissioning and management teams stopped or reduced delivery of both HENRY and the implementation optimisation intervention due to competing demands. Thus, at follow-up, HENRY programmes were delivered to approximately half the number of parents compared to baseline (n = 433 vs. 881). Conclusions During a period in which services were reduced by external policies, this first definitive trial found no evidence of effectiveness for an implementation optimisation intervention promoting parent enrolment to and attendance at an obesity prevention programme. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT02675699. Registered on 4 February 2016 Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05757-w.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Bryant
- Department of Health Sciences and the Hull York Medical School, University of York, YO105DD, York, UK. .,Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
| | - Wendy Burton
- Department of Health Sciences and the Hull York Medical School, University of York, YO105DD, York, UK.,Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Michelle Collinson
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Amanda Farrin
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Jane Nixon
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - June Stevens
- Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA
| | - Kim Roberts
- HENRY Head Office, 8 Elm Place, Old Witney Road, Eynsham, OX29 4BD, UK
| | - Robbie Foy
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Harry Rutter
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK
| | - Bethan Copsey
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Suzanne Hartley
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Sandy Tubeuf
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.,IRSS-IRES, Université catholique de Louvain, B-1348, Louvain, La-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Julia Brown
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Effectiveness of home fire safety interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0215724. [PMID: 31107902 PMCID: PMC6527231 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215724] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2019] [Accepted: 04/09/2019] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the effectiveness of Home Fire Safety (HFS) interventions versus other interventions/no interventions/controls on HFS knowledge and behaviour at short-, intermediate- and long-term follow ups. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched from January 1998 to July 2018, and studies retrieved. PARTICIPANTS Toddlers, children (primary or secondary school), teenagers or adults. INTERVENTIONS/COMPARISON HFS interventions compared to other interventions / no interventions / controls. OUTCOMES HFS knowledge and behaviour. RESULTS 10 studies were identified (8 RCTs and 2 prospective cohort). Two studies assessed the effects of HFS interventions vs no interventions on HFS knowledge at up to 4 months follow up in school children and demonstrated significant difference between groups (very low quality, 2 RCTs, 535 participants, SMD 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.55, p < 0.001). One study examined the effects of different modes of HFS interventions (computer-based vs instructor-led) on HFS knowledge and behaviour immediately post-intervention in adults and displayed no significant difference between groups (HFS knowledge; very low quality, 1 RCT, 68 participants, SMD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.45, p = 0.92) and (HFS behaviour; very low quality, 1 RCT, 68 participants, SMD 0.06, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.54, p = 0.79) respectively. CONCLUSION The limited evidence supports the use of HFS interventions to improve HFS knowledge and behaviour in children, families with children and adults.
Collapse
|