Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children
S S Fonseca1, C G Victora, R Halpern
1Department of Maternal and Child Health, Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil. silviasf@terra.com.br
Insights
Prospective injury diaries capture more childhood injuries than retrospective recall methods. This improved injury surveillance is crucial for developing effective prevention strategies.
Area of Science:
- Pediatrics
- Epidemiology
- Public Health
Background:
- Childhood injury surveillance often relies on retrospective methods, lacking comparative data.
- Existing methods may underestimate injury incidence, impacting public health strategies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy of retrospective injury reporting versus prospective diary-based methods in children.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of different injury data collection techniques.
Main Methods:
- A population-based birth cohort study in Brazil compared retrospective injury reports with prospective diary entries.
- Included 1,273 children in the retrospective group and 620 in the prospective group.
- Injury incidence was compared over a one-month period.
Main Results:
- Prospective diaries yielded significantly higher injury incidence (48.4%) compared to retrospective reports (20.8%).
- The retrospective method identified only 20.2% of injuries compared to the prospective diary standard.
- Under-reporting was more pronounced for injuries requiring medical care.
Conclusions:
- Prospective diary methods offer more comprehensive childhood injury data than retrospective recall.
- This method enhances epidemiological information for targeted injury prevention.
- Promoting diary use can improve public health surveillance for child injuries.
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 1,273 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.
