Child Injury Prevention via Community-Based Delivery in Rural China - Summary - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Community-Based Strategies to Prevent Child Injuries in Rural China

  • By

  • Ning Tang

  • Ye Jin

  • Maoyi Tian

  • November 11, 2026

Share

Objective:

To assess whether structured, community-delivered home visits can reduce child injuries and improve household safety in rural China.

Approach:
  • Design and setting: Outcome assessor–blinded cluster randomized clinical trial in 24 rural communities in Guizhou and Shaanxi provinces, involving 360 households with children aged 3 to 12 years.
  • Intervention: Trained civil society organization social workers delivered three monthly structured home visits and a month-4 follow-up, using standardized home safety and first aid tool kits to identify hazards, support remediation, and reinforce safety skills.
  • Comparator and follow-up: The intervention was compared with routine social worker services; outcomes were assessed over four months.
Key Findings:
  • Among households with observed outcomes, cumulative injury incidence was 11.8% in the intervention group and 19.1% in the control group.
  • In the intention-to-treat analysis, intervention exposure was associated with lower odds of injury (adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.73).
  • After adjustment, caregiver supervisory behavior scores at month 4 were 17.08 points higher and household environmental hazard scores were 36.66 points lower in the intervention group.
  • Improvements were more pronounced for supervision and household safety than for caregiver knowledge and attitudes.
Interpretation:

The trial provides proof of concept for delivering structured child injury prevention through a community-based social work platform. The authors describe the approach as complementary to school-based prevention and primary care.

Limitations:
  • Follow-up ended at month 4, while the intervention was ongoing; persistence of benefits after visits stop is unknown.
  • The primary outcome relied on caregiver reports from participants aware of group assignment, so reporting bias cannot be ruled out.
  • The trial could not identify which intervention components produced the observed changes.
  • Broader implementation requires further assessment of delivery resources and costs, and replication depends on comparable community infrastructure and workforce support.
Conclusion:

The authors call for extended follow-up and further evaluation of implementation resources, costs, and fidelity before broader implementation.

Sources:

Original Source(s)

Related Content