Injury
Volume 41, Supplement 1 , Pages S16-S19, July 2010

Special issues in injury prevention research: Developing the science of program implementation

  • Roderick John McClure

      Affiliations

    • Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia1
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Accident Research Centre, Room 126, Building 70, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia. Tel.: +61 3 9905 4372; fax: +61 3 9905 4363.
  • ,
  • Elizabeth Davis

      Affiliations

    • Injury Prevention and Control (Australia) Ltd, Brisbane, Australia
  • ,
  • Emily Yorkston

      Affiliations

    • ARTD Consultants, Sydney, Australia
  • ,
  • Per Nilsen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Division of Social Medicine and Public Health Science, Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden
  • ,
  • Philip Schluter

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
  • ,
  • Lyndal Bugeja

      Affiliations

    • Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia1

Abstract 

Introduction

Despite widespread application of the public health approach to injury prevention, there is an acknowledged limitation in the extent to which it facilitates translation of research evidence to injury prevention practice.

Aim

In this paper we clarify the ecoepidemiological principles that underpin the public health approach to injury control in order to support explicit efforts to address the multilevel component causes and improve the evidence base on which effective program implementation depends.

Keypoints

If injury causation is understood in terms of the ecoepidemiological model rather than the proximal risk factor model, then quantification of the context in which the event occurs is evidently as important as quantification of the energy exchange event itself. The ecoepidemiological model of injury causation recognises barriers and facilitators to injury prevention as component causes of population burden of injury and thus delineates these factors as legitimate targets for intervention. Injury prevention programs that are designed to specifically address the factors causally related to the program's implementation, as well as the contextual factors that determine the characteristics of the energy exchange event, are more likely to be implemented and more likely to result in effective uptake of recommended energy exchange countermeasures.

Conclusion

Interventions to reduce the burden of injury in the population should address the individual level factors that increase the risk of injury, but also the upstream factors that influence the extent to which there is widespread adoption by individuals of the recommended countermeasures.

Keywords: Models, Policy, Public health, Implementation research

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0020-1383(10)00283-4

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.05.001

Injury
Volume 41, Supplement 1 , Pages S16-S19, July 2010