Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kendrick, D.
Right arrow Articles by Coupland, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kendrick, D.
Right arrow Articles by Coupland, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, 380-388, June 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press

Accidental injury: a neglected area within Primary Care Groups and Trusts?

Denise Kendrick, Lindsay Groom, Julia Hippisley-Cox, Boki S. P. Savelyich, Elizabeth Webber and Carol Coupland

Division of General Practice, Floor 13, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.E-mail: denise.kendrick{at}nottingham.co.uk

Our objective was to assess accidental injury prevention activity within Primary Care Groups/Trusts (PCG/Ts), and current knowledge and attitudes towards accidental injuries and their prevention amongst PCG/T board members. We used a cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey design. Participants were board members of 51 PCG/Ts in Trent. The main outcome measures were prioritization of accidental injury prevention and factors influencing prioritization, perceptions of the accidental injury rates in the population served by the PCG/T, accidental injury prevention activity undertaken by the PCG/T, attitudes towards accidental injury prevention and towards the PCG/Ts involvement in accidental injury prevention, knowledge of accidental injury mortality, and beliefs in the effectiveness of interventions. Many (66%) PCG/T board members see accident prevention as the least important of the priority areas in the Government’s health strategy for England. Half the PCG/Ts (49%) had formally discussed accidents at a PCG/T meeting, 34% had taken action and 29% had written an accident prevention strategy. The median number of agencies PCG/Ts were working with on accident prevention was 2. GPs held less positive attitudes about accident prevention than other board members (Z = -10.01, P < 0.001), but had a greater knowledge about injury mortality (Z = -3.92, P < 0.001). Health promotion leads had more positive attitudes towards accident prevention than other board members (Z = -3.70, P < 0.001). There were misconceptions amongst health promotion leads about the effectiveness of some accident prevention interventions. We conclude that there is little evidence of prioritization of accidents as an area for health improvement. Although some PCG/Ts are undertaking accidental injury prevention, a minority have demonstrated strategic planning with respect to accident prevention or collaboration with a wide range of agencies. Accident prevention and the PCG/Ts role within this are not viewed positively by all board members. Gaps in knowledge about accidents and their prevention are apparent. PCG/Ts will need help and support to fully develop their potential in preventing accidental injuries.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Fam PractHome page
C. A. Coupland, B. S. Savelyich, J. Hippisley-Cox, D. Kendrick, L. Groom, and E. Cross
A randomized controlled trial of the effect of providing information on accidental injury admissions and their costs to Primary Care Groups and Trusts
Fam. Pract., June 1, 2005; 22(3): 249 - 252.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.