Judith Sleney

The UK Burden of Injury Study – a protocol. [National Research Register number: M0044160889]

BackgroundGlobally and nationally large numbers of people are injured each year, yet there is little information on the impact of these injuries on peoples lives, on society and on health and social care services. Measurement of the burden of injuries is needed at a global, national and regional level to be able to inform injured people of the likely duration of impairment; to guide policy makers in investing in preventative measures; to facilitate the evaluation and cost effectiveness of interventions and to contribute to international efforts to more accurately assess the global burden of injuries.Methods/DesignA prospective, longitudinal multi-centre study of 1333 injured individuals, atttending Emergency Departments or admitted to hospital in four UK areas: Swansea, Surrey, Bristol and Nottingham. Specified quotas of patients with defined injuries covering the whole spectrum will be recruited. Participants (or a proxy) will complete a baseline questionnaire regarding their injury and pre-injury quality of life. Follow up occurs at 1, 4, and 12 months post injury or until return to normal function within 12 months, with measures of health service utilisation, impairment, disability, and health related quality of life. National estimates of the burden of injuries will be calculated by extrapolation from the sample population to national and regional computerised hospital in-patient, emergency department and mortality data.DiscussionThis study will provide more detailed data on the national burden of injuries than has previously been available in any country and will contribute to international collaborative efforts to more accurately assess the global burden of injuries. The results will be used to advise policy makers on prioritisation of preventive measures, support the evaluation of interventions, and provide guidance on the likely impact and degree of impairment and disability following specific injuries.

Understanding high traffic injury risks for children in low socioeconomic areas: a qualitative study of parents' views.

Objective: To gain an in-depth qualitative understanding of parents’ views about their children’s exposure to road traffic injury risk in low socioeconomic areas. Design: Focus groups facilitated by a moderator with content analysis of data. Setting: Focus groups were conducted in 10 low socioeconomic English districts that also have high rates of child pedestrian injury. Research was conducted in community venues within each area. Subjects: Parents of children aged 9–14 years living in low socioeconomic areas. Results: Parents believe that children play in their local streets for the following reasons: they like playing out with friends near home; there are few safe, secure, and well-maintained public spaces for children; children are excluded from affordable leisure venues because of their costs; insufficient parental responsibility. For children that play in the street, the key sources of risk identified by parents were: illegal riding and driving around estates and on the pavements; the speed and volume of traffic; illegal parking; drivers being poorly informed about where children play; children’s risk-taking behavior. Conclusions: Intervention programs need to take into account multiple reasons why children in low socioeconomic areas become exposed to hazardous environments thereby increasing their risk of injury. Multi-agency partnerships involving the community are increasingly needed to implement traditional road safety approaches, such as education, engineering, and enforcement, and provide safe and accessible public space, affordable activities for children, and greater support for parents.

The Advocacy in Action Study a cluster randomized controlled trial to reduce pedestrian injuries in deprived communities

Background Road trafficrelated injury is a major global public health problem. In most countries, pedestrian injuries occur predominantly to the poorest in society. A number of evaluated interventions are effective in reducing these injuries. Very little research has been carried out into the distribution and determinants of the uptake of these interventions. Previous research has shown an association between local political influence and the distribution of traffic calming after adjustment for historical crash patterns. This led to the hypothesis that advocacy could be used to increase local politicians knowledge of pedestrian injury risk and effective interventions, ultimately resulting in improved pedestrian safety. Objective To design an intervention to improve the uptake of pedestrian safety measures in deprived communities. Setting Electoral wards in deprived areas of England and Wales with a poor record of pedestrian safety for children and older adults. Methods Design mixedmethods study, incorporating a cluster randomized controlled trial. Data mixture of Geographical Information Systems data collision locations, road safety interventions, telephone interviews, and questionnaires. Randomization 239 electoral wards clustered within 57 local authorities. Participants 615 politicians representing intervention and control wards. Intervention a package of tailored information including maps of pedestrian injuries was designed for intervention politicians, and a general information pack for controls. Outcome measures Primary outcome number of road safety interventions 25months after randomization. Secondary outcomes politicians interest and involvement in injury prevention cost of interventions. Process evaluation use of advocacy pack, facilitators and barriers to involvement, and success.

The Advocacy for Pedestrian Safety Study: Cluster Randomised Trial Evaluating a Political Advocacy Approach to Reduce Pedestrian Injuries in Deprived Communities

Objective To determine whether advocacy targeted at local politicians leads to action to reduce the risk of pedestrian injury in deprived areas. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 239 electoral wards in 57 local authorities in England and Wales. Participants 617 elected local politicians. Interventions Intervention group politicians were provided with tailored information packs, including maps of casualty sites, numbers injured and a synopsis of effective interventions. Main outcome measures 25–30 months post intervention, primary outcomes included: electoral ward level: percentage of road traffic calmed; proportion with new interventions; school level: percentage with 20 mph zones, Safe Routes to School, pedestrian training or road safety education; politician level: percentage lobbying for safety measures. Secondary outcomes included politicians’ interest and involvement in injury prevention, and facilitators and barriers to implementation. Results Primary outcomes did not significantly differ: % difference in traffic calming (0.07, 95%CI: −0.07 to 0.20); proportion of schools with 20 mph zones (RR 1.47, 95%CI: 0.93 to 2.32), Safe Routes to School (RR 1.34, 95%CI: 0.83 to 2.17), pedestrian training (RR 1.23, 95%CI: 0.95 to 1.61) or other safety education (RR 1.16, 95%CI: 0.97 to 1.39). Intervention group politicians reported greater interest in child injury prevention (RR 1.09, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.16), belief in potential to help prevent injuries (RR 1.36, 95%CI 1.16 to 1.61), particularly pedestrian safety (RR 1.55, 95%CI 1.19 to 2.03). 63% of intervention politicians reported supporting new pedestrian safety schemes. The majority found the advocacy information surprising, interesting, effectively presented, and could identify suitable local interventions. Conclusions This study demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative approach to translational public health by targeting local politicians in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention package was positively viewed and raised interest but changes in interventions were not statistically significance. Longer term supported advocacy may be needed. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91381117

Psychological morbidity and return to work after injury: multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND The benefits of work for physical, psychological, and financial wellbeing are well documented. Return to work (RTW) after unintentional injury is often delayed, and psychological morbidity may contribute to this delay. The impact of psychological morbidity on RTW after a wide range of unintentional injuries in the UK has not been adequately quantified. AIM To quantify the role of psychological factors, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic distress, on RTW following unintentional injuries. DESIGN AND SETTING A longitudinal multicentre prospective study was undertaken in Nottingham, Bristol, Leicester, and Guildford, UK. METHOD Participants (n = 273) were 16-69-year-olds admitted to hospital following unintentional injury, who were in paid employment prior to injury. They were surveyed at baseline, then at 1, 2, 4, and 12 months following injury; demographic data were collected along with injury characteristics, psychological morbidity, and RTW status. Associations between demographic, injury and psychological factors, and RTW between 2 and 12 months after injury were quantified using random effects logistic regression. RESULTS The odds of RTW between 2 and 12 months after injury reduced as depression scores early in the recovery period (1 month after injury) increased (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79 to 0.95) and as length of hospital stay increased (OR 0.91, 95% CI] = 0.86 to 0.96). For those experiencing threatening life events following injury (OR 0.27, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.72) and with higher scores on the Crisis Support Scale (OR 0.93, 95% CI] = 0.88 to 0.99), the odds of RTW between 2 and 12 months after injury were lower. Multiple imputation analysis found similar results, but those relating to crisis support did not remain statistically significant. CONCLUSION Primary care professionals can identify patients at risk of delayed RTW who may benefit from management of psychological morbidity and support to RTW.

Engaging the Somali Community in the Road Safety Agenda: A Process Evaluation from the London Borough of Hounslow

In the UK the most disadvantaged in society are more likely than those more affluent to be injured or killed in a road traffic collision and therefore it is a major cause of health inequality. There is a strong link between ethnicity, deprivation and injury. Whilst national road traffic injury data does not collect ethnic origin the London accident and analysis group does in terms of broad categories such as ‘white’, ‘black’ and ‘Asian’. Analysis of this data revealed the over-representation of child pedestrian casualties from a ‘black’ ethnic origin. This information led road safety practitioners in one London borough to map child pedestrian casualties against census data which identified the Somali community as being particularly at risk of being involved in a road traffic collision. Working with the community they sought to discuss and address road safety issues and introduced practical evidence based approaches such as child pedestrian training. The process evaluation of the project used a qualitative approach and showed that engaging with community partners and working across organisational boundaries was a useful strategy to gain an understanding of the Somali community. A bottom approach provided the community with a sense of control and involvement which appears to add value in terms of reducing the sense of powerlessness that marginalised communities often feel. In terms of evaluation, small projects like these, lend themselves to a qualitative process evaluation though it has to be accepted that the strength of this evidence may be regarded as weak. Where possible routine injury data needs to take into account ethnicity which is a known risk factor for road casualty involvement which needs to be continually monitored.

Early risk factors for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress after hospital admission for unintentional injury: multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVE To quantify psychological morbidity and identify baseline factors associated with depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress symptoms up to 12 months post-injury. METHODS Multicentre cohort study of 668 adults, aged 16 to 70, admitted to 4 UK NHS hospital trusts. Data on injury, socio-demographic characteristics and health status was collected at recruitment. Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress were measured at 1, 2, 4 and 12 months post-injury. Multilevel linear regression assessed associations between patient and injury characteristics and psychological outcomes over 12 months follow-up. RESULTS Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress scores were highest 1 month post-injury, and remained above baseline at 2, 4 and 12 months post-injury. Moderate or severe injuries, previous psychiatric diagnoses, higher pre-injury depression and anxiety scores, middle age (45-64 years), greater deprivation and lower pre-injury quality of life (QoL) were associated with higher depression scores post-injury. Previous psychiatric diagnoses, higher pre-injury depression and anxiety scores, middle age, greater deprivation and lower pre-injury QoL were associated with higher anxiety scores post-injury. Traffic injuries or injuries from being struck by objects, multiple injures (≥3), being female, previous psychiatric diagnoses, higher pre-injury anxiety scores and greater deprivation were associated with higher post-traumatic distress scores post-injury. CONCLUSION A range of risk factors, identifiable shortly after injury, are associated with psychological morbidity occurring up to 12 months post-injury in a general trauma population. Further research is required to explore the utility of these, and other risk factors in predicting psychological morbidity on an individual patient basis.