A Su Salud Injury Prevention expansion: Analysis of injury prevention perceptions in a Hispanic community

Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death for American ages one to 44 and is ranked in the top ten causes of death for all age groups (CDC, 2006a). A Su Salud Injury Prevention was developed to address injury prevention awareness and education. The program is a mass media education campaign that uses role models, mass media, and community outreach to prevent injury. In 2009, University Health System (UHS) expanded the program. Baseline data were collected from 426 residents in targeted neighborhoods northwest of downtown San Antonio to support the expansion. The purpose of this study was to explore injury perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors of adults living in the expansion area, and define the predominant factors associated with these perceptions. A secondary aim was to assess community awareness and willingness to participate in the program.^ Survey results showed motor vehicle crashes (MVC), falls, drinking and driving, and guns and assaults were considered the most serious injures for adults. The most serious child injuries were MVC, abuse and neglect, falls, and head injuries. Residents were knowledgeable of state seatbelt policy, and over 90% responded as compliant for seatbelt and child car seat use. Most were knowledgeable about drinking and driving state policy and negative outcomes. However, 70% of those reporting driving under the influence of alcohol within the last year engaged in repeat high risk behavior. Men and residents under the age of 55 were more likely to engage in repeat drinking and driving (OR= 3.6, 7.0 respectively). Residents consider injury prevention an important issue, and have interest in a local injury prevention program. Younger women are the most likely to participate in a local program as potential role models and volunteers.^ Results from the study are summarized into an injury prevention and demographic profile of the community that will be used to develop tailored injury prevention messages to create a more effective program, and support program coordinators in effective community engagement. Results will also be used as a comparative basis for future evaluation of a behavioral injury prevention program focused on a predominantly Mexican-American community.^

Child Maltreatment Prevention – Finding Common Ground with Unintentional Injury Prevention

Child Maltreatment Prevention – Finding Common Ground with Unintentional Injury Prevention

The experience and meaning of injury among migrant farmworkers from Starr County, Texas

Occupational injuries suffered by migrant farmworkers in the United States continue to be a significant byproduct of the hazards of the agricultural work sector. Although the fields of study involving occupational health and safety have helped to further an understanding of the importance of injury prevention in the workplace, farmworkers have typically not been the beneficiaries of significant improvement in working conditions; similarly, public health policies have generally not been successful in significantly improving their protection. The primary objective of this research was to examine more closely, through in-depth interviews, the underlying reasons attributed by migrant farmworkers to their having suffered occupational injuries. By re-contacting and re-interviewing migrant farmworkers who had reported injuries in a study entitled A Cohort Study of Injuries in Migrant Farmworker Families in South Texas, the current research study employed qualitative research methods and determined several reasons that may help to explain why this specific group has suffered injuries and may not have reported such injuries, as well as to consider what their experiences may say about injury prevention within the context of public health.^

Moving Upstream to Prevent Child Maltreatment

Invited Commentary on "Child Maltreatment Prevention - Finding Common Ground with Unintentional Injury Prevention."

The association of nonfatal occupational injuries with non -work -related morbidity

A case-referent study of occupational injuries sustained by 474 workers employed in the heavy equipment machinery industry over a two year period, 1985-1986, was undertaken to examine the association of occupational injuries with non-work-related morbidity. Its specific aim was to evaluate whether employees who experienced a work-related injury had an increased prevalence of non-work-related morbidity, specifically for injuries, cardiovascular disease, mental disorders, all other disease outcomes and total morbidity, compared to employees who did not experience a work-related injury. In order to determine the direction of the relationship, the use of the previous calendar year was employed to assess non-work-related morbidity. A secondary objective of the study was the evaluation of the utility of two existing data sources, workers' compensation and group health insurance claims, and the feasibility of conducting studies based on these data.^ The association of non-work-related non-back injuries and subsequent occupational injury was statistically significant (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.02-1.67) for all WC claims. The strength of the association was supported by the elevated odds ratio for non-work-related injuries when severity of occupational injury was assessed by WC claim costs of $100 and greater (OR = 1.47, 1.09--1.97), and by lost workdays (OR = 1.37). Factors that predispose an individual to a non-back injury, such as personal attributes and lifestyle characteristics, also influence that individual's risk of subsequent occupational injury. These factors may be reflected in an employee's reaction to life stressors which influence susceptibility to injury. The role of employee assistance programs as a component of injury prevention strategies is suggested.^ An increased but nonsignificant prevalence of non-work-related injuries, cardiovascular disease, mental disorders, and other morbidity conditions was noted among cases. These findings do not provide support of a causal factor in the etiology of occupational injuries. In contrast to non-back injuries, these conditions are chronic in nature and their influence on risk of occupational injuries uncertain.^ In general, cases tended to file more group health insurance claims for other morbidity than did referents. The association with increased total morbidity was consistent whether worker compensation claims were analyzed by total number of claims, claims with costs of $100 and greater, or by lost workdays. Whether persons who sustained an occupational injury were in fact in poor general health than referents, warrant further investigation. ^

The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous system in prevention of percutaneous injury in two hospitals

This study assessed if hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous connection system reduces the number of reported percutaneous injuries, overall and those specifically due to intravenous connection activities.^ Incidence rates were compared before and after hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous system at two hospitals, a full service general hospital and a pediatric hospital. The years 1989-1991 were designated as pre-implementation and 1993 was designated as post-implementation. Data from 1992 were not included in the effectiveness evaluation to allow employees to become familiar with use of the new device. The two hospitals showed rate ratios of 1.37 (95% CI = 1.22-1.54, p $\le$.0001) and 1.63 (95% CI = 1.34-1.97, p $\le$.0001), or a 27.1% and a 38.6% reduction in overall injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for intravenous connection injuries were 2.67 (95% CI = 1.89-3.78, p $\le$.0001) and 3.35 (95% CI = 1.87-6.02, p $\le$.0001), or a 62.5% and a 69.9% reduction in injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for all non-intravenous connection injuries were calculated to control for factors other than device implementation that may have been operating to reduce the injury rate. These rate ratios were lower, 1.21 and 1.44, demonstrating the magnitude of injury reduction due to factors other than device implementation. It was concluded that the device was effective in reduction of numbers of reported percutaneous injuries.^ Use-effectiveness of the system was also assessed by a survey of randomly selected device users to determine satisfaction with the device, frequency of use and barriers to use. Four hundred seventy-eight surveys were returned for a response rate of 50.9%. Approximately 94% of respondents at both hospitals expressed satisfaction with the needleless system and recommended continued use. The survey also revealed that even though over 50% of respondents report using the device "always" or "most of the time" for intravenous medication administration, flushing lines, and connecting secondary intravenous lines, needles were still being used for these same activities. Compatibility, accessibility and other technical problems were reported as reasons for using needles for these activities. These problems must be addressed, by both manufacturers and users, before the needleless system will be effective in prevention of all intravenous connection injuries. ^