Study designs of evaluations included in the review
Studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion in the review.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies of group-based strategies addressing the prevention of unintentional injuries compared with control treatments were eligible for inclusion. The interventions had to be primarily targeted at children but could also be aimed at parents. Group-led interventions were defined as strategies that provided interventions in a systematic manner to a group of children, primarily in a classroom or day care setting. Studies incorporating a community element and studies aimed at individuals were excluded.
The studies reported in the review included interventions aimed at road crossing, car restraint, spinal cord safety, poison safety and one combination emergency phone number/stranger danger/street crossing intervention. Activities included videos, interactive activities, cartoons, stories, puppets, singing, colouring, games, simulation games, demonstration, modelling/role playing and rehearsal practice using seat belts, and model and real street crossings. Parent activities included workshops, home activities and written information. The interventions ranged in duration from one 40-minute session to 2 weeks' intensive classroom instruction of unknown duration. The interventions were delivered by teachers (4 studies), trained parents or volunteers (3 studies) and researchers (one study); one study failed to report who delivered the intervention.
Participants included in the review
Studies of children under 6 years of age were eligible for inclusion. The studies reported in the review included children ranging in age from 3 to 6 years. All but one of the studies was of pre-school children (age 3 to 5); one study was of kindergarten children (age 5 to 6).
Outcomes assessed in the review
Studies that assessed knowledge, safety behaviours or incidence of injuries were eligible for inclusion. The studies included in the review assessed outcomes at different time points, ranging from immediately after the intervention to 6 months post-intervention.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The authors did not report how many reviewers performed the selection, or how any disagreements were resolved.