Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children

Sílva S. Fonseca, C. G. Victora, R. Halpern, R. D C Lima, F. C. Barros

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Most studies of injuries use health services records or recall rather than prospective methods, and there is no information on how these different methods compare. This study was aimed at comparing a report (retrospective) with a diary (prospective) for recording childhood injuries. Methods: The study included 1273 and 620 children, the retrospective and prospective subsamples, respectively, from a population based birth cohort in Pelotas, southern Brazil. The reported incidence of injuries in the preceding month were compared with those reported over month by diary (prospective study). Results: Both methods were well accepted and 92.7% of the diaries were returned. One or more injuries per child month were reported for 20.8% (retrospective) and 48.4% (prospective) of the children. The total number of reported injuries for the 620 children were 145 (retrospective) and 715 (prospective). Using the prospective method as the gold standard, the retrospective method detected only 20.2% of all injuries. Under-reporting did not vary significantly with maternal education, but was greater (51.8%) for injuries requiring medical care than for those managed at home (18.3%; p=0.003). Conclusions: The diary was well accepted and resulted in higher incidences of reported injuries than the recall method, particularly for injuries that did not require medical care. Use of this method should be promoted to provide more complete epidemiological information to guide preventive strategies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)79-82
Number of pages4
JournalInjury Prevention
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Preschool Children
Wounds and Injuries
Incidence
Managed Care Programs
Health Services
Brazil
Mothers
Parturition
Prospective Studies
Education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Fonseca, S. S., Victora, C. G., Halpern, R., Lima, R. D. C., & Barros, F. C. (2002). Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children. Injury Prevention, 8(1), 79-82. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.8.1.79

Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children. / Fonseca, Sílva S.; Victora, C. G.; Halpern, R.; Lima, R. D C; Barros, F. C.

In: Injury Prevention, Vol. 8, No. 1, 03.2002, p. 79-82.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fonseca, SS, Victora, CG, Halpern, R, Lima, RDC & Barros, FC 2002, 'Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children', Injury Prevention, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79-82. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.8.1.79
Fonseca, Sílva S. ; Victora, C. G. ; Halpern, R. ; Lima, R. D C ; Barros, F. C. / Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children. In: Injury Prevention. 2002 ; Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 79-82.
@article{edfebe49fc334c0fa14b28ba3dc55fc4,
title = "Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children",
abstract = "Background: Most studies of injuries use health services records or recall rather than prospective methods, and there is no information on how these different methods compare. This study was aimed at comparing a report (retrospective) with a diary (prospective) for recording childhood injuries. Methods: The study included 1273 and 620 children, the retrospective and prospective subsamples, respectively, from a population based birth cohort in Pelotas, southern Brazil. The reported incidence of injuries in the preceding month were compared with those reported over month by diary (prospective study). Results: Both methods were well accepted and 92.7{\%} of the diaries were returned. One or more injuries per child month were reported for 20.8{\%} (retrospective) and 48.4{\%} (prospective) of the children. The total number of reported injuries for the 620 children were 145 (retrospective) and 715 (prospective). Using the prospective method as the gold standard, the retrospective method detected only 20.2{\%} of all injuries. Under-reporting did not vary significantly with maternal education, but was greater (51.8{\%}) for injuries requiring medical care than for those managed at home (18.3{\%}; p=0.003). Conclusions: The diary was well accepted and resulted in higher incidences of reported injuries than the recall method, particularly for injuries that did not require medical care. Use of this method should be promoted to provide more complete epidemiological information to guide preventive strategies.",
author = "Fonseca, {S{\'i}lva S.} and Victora, {C. G.} and R. Halpern and Lima, {R. D C} and Barros, {F. C.}",
year = "2002",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1136/ip.8.1.79",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "79--82",
journal = "Injury Prevention",
issn = "1353-8047",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children

AU - Fonseca, Sílva S.

AU - Victora, C. G.

AU - Halpern, R.

AU - Lima, R. D C

AU - Barros, F. C.

PY - 2002/3

Y1 - 2002/3

N2 - Background: Most studies of injuries use health services records or recall rather than prospective methods, and there is no information on how these different methods compare. This study was aimed at comparing a report (retrospective) with a diary (prospective) for recording childhood injuries. Methods: The study included 1273 and 620 children, the retrospective and prospective subsamples, respectively, from a population based birth cohort in Pelotas, southern Brazil. The reported incidence of injuries in the preceding month were compared with those reported over month by diary (prospective study). Results: Both methods were well accepted and 92.7% of the diaries were returned. One or more injuries per child month were reported for 20.8% (retrospective) and 48.4% (prospective) of the children. The total number of reported injuries for the 620 children were 145 (retrospective) and 715 (prospective). Using the prospective method as the gold standard, the retrospective method detected only 20.2% of all injuries. Under-reporting did not vary significantly with maternal education, but was greater (51.8%) for injuries requiring medical care than for those managed at home (18.3%; p=0.003). Conclusions: The diary was well accepted and resulted in higher incidences of reported injuries than the recall method, particularly for injuries that did not require medical care. Use of this method should be promoted to provide more complete epidemiological information to guide preventive strategies.

AB - Background: Most studies of injuries use health services records or recall rather than prospective methods, and there is no information on how these different methods compare. This study was aimed at comparing a report (retrospective) with a diary (prospective) for recording childhood injuries. Methods: The study included 1273 and 620 children, the retrospective and prospective subsamples, respectively, from a population based birth cohort in Pelotas, southern Brazil. The reported incidence of injuries in the preceding month were compared with those reported over month by diary (prospective study). Results: Both methods were well accepted and 92.7% of the diaries were returned. One or more injuries per child month were reported for 20.8% (retrospective) and 48.4% (prospective) of the children. The total number of reported injuries for the 620 children were 145 (retrospective) and 715 (prospective). Using the prospective method as the gold standard, the retrospective method detected only 20.2% of all injuries. Under-reporting did not vary significantly with maternal education, but was greater (51.8%) for injuries requiring medical care than for those managed at home (18.3%; p=0.003). Conclusions: The diary was well accepted and resulted in higher incidences of reported injuries than the recall method, particularly for injuries that did not require medical care. Use of this method should be promoted to provide more complete epidemiological information to guide preventive strategies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036514528&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036514528&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/ip.8.1.79

DO - 10.1136/ip.8.1.79

M3 - Article

C2 - 11928981

AN - SCOPUS:0036514528

VL - 8

SP - 79

EP - 82

JO - Injury Prevention

JF - Injury Prevention

SN - 1353-8047

IS - 1

ER -