Original article Arch Dis Child: first published as 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308486 on 10 December 2015. Downloaded from Risk and protective factors for falls on stairs in young children: multicentre case–control study D Kendrick,1 K Zou,1 J Ablewhite,1 M Watson,2 C Coupland,1 BKay,3 A Hawkins,4 R Reading5 ▸ Additional material is ABSTRACT published online only. To view Aim To investigate risk and protective factors for stair What is already known on this topic please visit the journal online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ falls in children aged <5 years. Methods Multicentre case–control study at hospitals, archdischild-2015-308486). ▸ Falls are the leading cause of medically minor injury units and general practices in and around 1Division of Primary Care, attended injury in preschool children, and falls four UK study centres. Cases were children with School of Medicine, from stairs comprise 12% of hospital medically attended stair fall injuries. Controls were Nottingham, UK admissions and 18% of emergency department 2School of Health Sciences, matched on age, sex, calendar time and study centre. A attendances for falls. University of Nottingham, total of 610 cases and 2658 controls participated. ’ ▸ Home safety education and equipment Queen s Medical Centre, Results Cases’ most common injuries were bangs on Nottingham, UK provision can increase use of stair safety gates, 3 the head (66%), cuts/grazes not requiring stitches (14%) Emergency Department, but there is little evidence that this reduces Bristol Children’s Hospital, and fractures (12%). Parents of cases were significantly injuries. Bristol, UK more likely not to have stair gates (adjusted OR (AOR) 4 ’ Great North Children s 2.50, 95% CI 1.90 to 3.29; population attributable Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation fraction (PAF) 21%) or to leave stair gates open (AOR 3.09, 95% CI 2.39 to 4.00; PAF 24%) both compared Trust, Research Unit Level 2, What this study adds Newcastle upon Tyne, UK with having closed stair gates. They were more likely not to 5 Jenny Lind Paediatric have carpeted stairs (AOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.10; PAF Department, Norfolk and ▸ Family factors including use of stair gates, not Norwich University Hospital, 5%) and not to have a landing part-way up their stairs Norfolk Community Health and (AOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65; PAF 18%). They were leaving them open and having a stair carpet Care NHS Trust, Norwich, UK more likely to consider their stairs unsafe to use (AOR 1.46, were associated with reduced risk of a stair fall 95% CI 1.07 to 1.99; PAF 5%) or to be in need of repair injury. Correspondence to (AOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.50; PAF 5%). ▸ Structural factors including having a landing Professor Denise Kendrick, Division of Primary Care, Conclusion Structural factors including having landings part-way up the stairs and keeping stairs in School of Medicine, Floor 13 part-way up the stairs and keeping stairs in good repair good repair were associated with reduced Tower Building, University were associated with reduced stair fall injury risk. Family injury risk. Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, factors including having stair gates, not leaving gates open ▸ If these associations are causal, addressing UK; denise.kendrick@ these factors in routine child health promotion nottingham.ac.uk and having stair carpets were associated with reduced injury risk. If these associations are causal, addressing and housing policy could reduce stair fall http://adc.bmj.com/ Received 24 February 2015 these factors in housing policy and routine child health injuries. Revised 23 July 2015 promotion could reduce stair fall injuries. Accepted 6 August 2015 Published Online First 10 December 2015 walkers. The overview found little evidence that INTRODUCTION these interventions reduced injury rates.5 Our study Falls are the leading cause of medically attended aimed to quantify risk and protective factors for on September 26, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. injury in children aged <5 years in most high- stair falls among children aged <5 years. income countries.1 In England and Wales, in 2002, the latest year for which detailed emergency METHODS department (ED) data is available, falls among the The published protocol reports full details of the children aged <5 years resulted in more than methods.6 This study was one of five concurrent 190 000 ED attendances,2 and in 2012/2013 they case–control studies, each recruiting children with accounted for almost 20 000 hospital admissions in one type of injury (falls from furniture, falls on England.3 Falls from stairs or steps comprised 18% one level, stair falls, poisoning, scalds). of ED attendances for falls2 and 12% of admissions for falls.3 While some falls from stairs among chil- dren aged <5 years are associated with objects such Study design and setting as baby walkers, toys or pushchairs, most (88%) The study was conducted in NHS hospitals in are not and only a small proportion arise from chil- Nottingham, Bristol, Newcastle upon Tyne, dren being dropped while being carried on stairs.4 Norwich, Gateshead, Derby, Lincoln and Great A recent systematic overview found interventions Yarmouth, England. Case recruitment commenced providing home safety education, and/or home on 14 June 2010 and ended on 30 September To cite: Kendrick D, Zou K, safety equipment were effective in promoting the 2012. Control recruitment commenced at the same Ablewhite J, et al. Arch Dis use of safety gates on stairs and some evidence that time as case recruitment and ended within – Child 2016;101:909 916. they reduce the number of families using baby 4 months of case recruitment. Kendrick D, et al. Arch Dis Child 2016;101:909–916. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2015-308486 909 Original article Arch Dis Child: first published as 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308486 on 10 December 2015. Downloaded from Participants (white/other); single adult household (yes/no); the Hospital Cases were children aged 0–4 years attending EDs, minor injury Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, linear term)13; Parenting units or admitted to hospital following a fall on stairs in the Daily Hassles Scale (PDH, linear term)14 15; child behaviour – child’s home. Children with intentional or fatal injury or living questionnaire score (linear term)16 18; hours of out-of-home in residential care were excluded. Parents/carers of potentially child care per week (linear term) and child’s ability to open eligible children were invited to participate during their medical safety gate (likely/not likely). Some exposures were also consid- attendance or by telephone or post within 72 h of attendance. ered as potential confounders for other exposures including use Controls were children aged 0–4 years without a medically of playpen, teaching safety rules on stairs, stair gates and the attended stair fall, recruited from the case’s general practice (or composite stair safety variable described in table 1. Analyses for neighbouring practice). We aimed to recruit an average of four each exposure were adjusted for those confounders identified in controls for each case matched on age (up to 4 months younger the directed acyclic graphs as being in the minimal sufficient or 4 months older than the case), gender and calendar time adjustment set (listed in table 3). (recruited up to 4 months of the date of the case injury). Study invitations were sent to 10 potentially eligible controls for each Statistical analysis case by mail from the practice register. Where more than 10 Associations between exposures and stair falls were estimated control participants met inclusion criteria, those with dates of using ORs and 95% CIs, using conditional logistic regression birth closest to that of their matched case were chosen. To adjusted for confounders as described above. The linearity of increase power and make efficient use of recruited participants, relationships between continuous confounders and case/control control participants from cases with more than four controls, status was tested by adding higher-order terms to regression controls no longer matched to cases (eg, case had subsequently models, with categorisation where there was significant non- been excluded) and control participants from the other four linearity. Interaction terms were added to regression models to ongoing case–control studies were matched (on study centre, explore differential effects by child age, gender, ethnic group, age, gender and calendar time) to cases which had fewer than single parenthood, non-owner-occupied housing and unemploy- four controls. ment. An interaction between use of baby walkers and use of Participating parents/carers completed age-specific(0–12, 13– safety gates on stairs was also examined. Significance of interac- 36 and ≥37 months) questionnaires. One reminder was used for tions was assessed with likelihood ratio tests (p<0.01) and non-responders. Those completing questionnaires were given a stratified OR presented where significant interactions were £5 gift voucher. Other methods, shown in a systematic review found. The population attributable fraction (PAF) percentage to increase response rates, were used, including personalised was calculated for exposures with statistically significantly raised invitations, first class mailings, reminders and inclusion of uni- adjusted ORs (AORs) using a published formula.19 versity logos on study documentation.7 Questionnaires collected For the HADS, single missing item values for each subscale data on exposures, socio-demographical and confounding vari- were imputed using the mean of the remaining six items. ables, injuries and treatment received. Subscale scores were not computed when more than one item was missing.20 The same approach was used for missing values fi fi Sample size of PDH, since we were unable to nd speci c guidance on this.