Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Unintentional injury remains a leading health problem in developed nations, making injury prevention imperative. Practitioners are primary stakeholders in the injury prevention process but rarely can devote significant time to complicated prevention efforts. Furthermore, theory-based approaches to support injury prevention are less common than atheoretical approaches. We propose a simple method for injury prevention grounded in concepts found in antecedent models. Barriers, attitudes, social context, and environmental factors (or BASE) are suggested as a simple injury prevention model practitioners can follow when working with patients. We present each component of BASE and offer examples of how the approach can be applied to risk factors associated with several types of injury risk behavior.

Keywords

safety prevention unintentional injury

BASE offers a simple synthesis of some critical aspects of injury antecedent models that practitioners can easily remember and implement without spending much time.

Unintentional injury is a significant health problem in the United States. Among individuals between the ages of 1 and 44, unintentional injuries were the leading cause of death and the third leading cause of death across the lifespan in 2018.¹ An additional 26 million nonfatal unintentional injuries occurred in 2018.¹ Preventing injury risk behaviors and reducing the greater impact of unintentional injury on society remains imperative for reducing the burden of unintentional injury on society. Health practitioners are primary stakeholders in the problem of unintentional injury and can play a part in injury prevention.^2,3 However, practitioners do not generally have a significant amount of time to devote to prevention efforts and theory-based approaches to assist practitioners are lacking.⁴ Our goal is to provide a simple method for injury prevention applicable in a short amount of time. We first turn to the process of how injuries unfold.

Unintentional injuries and risk behaviors emerge from a process. Researchers have examined the etiological factors involved in this process for decades and have identified important risk factors. Some elements are environmental, while others are intrapersonal, for example, sex differences,⁵ personality characteristics,⁶ cognitive development,⁷ and misperception of ability.^8,9 Such studies point to injury as dependent on a cluster of predictive risk factors. However, we must be mindful that the process preceding injury risk behaviors is not merely a collection of orthogonal risk factors. Instead, a perhaps more appropriate perspective is to view injuries as resulting from a dynamic antecedent process prior to an injury event comprising many factors including risk behaviors themselves.

Grouping Antecedents in Useful Ways

Researchers have used various approaches for explaining and understanding the antecedent process preceding injury risk behaviors. Each of these approaches group factors in ways that are understandable and practical to apply. Some common examples are the Haddon matrix, the theory of planned behavior, the stages of change model, and the Health Belief Model.^4,10,11 To better illustrate one way the antecedent process can be modeled, consider the Haddon matrix. Haddon conceptualized injury as a process of unfolding antecedents consisting of factors described in the epidemiological triangle: host, agent, and environment. The interactions between host, agent, and environment are examined before, during, and after an injury event. By applying the epidemiological triangle at various stages of an injury event rather than one, our understanding of injury etiology improves by multiplying the contributing factors detected by the observer.^12,13 Health practitioners have traditionally treated injuries after an event, but understanding antecedent processes can help practitioners more effectively reduce injury.

A recently introduced framework for understanding the psychological process preceding injury risk behavior provides another example of antecedent modeling. Researchers proposed a risk appraisal framework to describe the evaluative phase preceding injury risk behaviors.¹⁴ In this evaluative phase, one appraises the risk involved in a behavior and any means of mitigating risk. The risk appraisal framework describes this process based on environmental context, personal experience with the behavior, social forces surrounding behavior, and personal strategy for risk mitigation. An appraisal using these four factors leads to a sense of efficacy related to performing the risk behavior, which determines whether the behavior is enacted. The risk appraisal model is uniquely suited to injury risk behaviors and inspired by concepts from established approaches, such as the Health Belief Model and the theory of planned behavior.

Yet another way the antecedent process can be understood is through the lens of human error, a concept borrowed from the field of human factors. Human error, simply put, is a mismatch between the intention and the outcome of a behavior.¹⁵ Placing a vehicle in drive, when a driver’s intention is to go in reverse, is a simple example of an error potentially leading to injury. The field of human factors provides various models for examining human error, but one simple model examines three components: human fallibility, context, and barriers.¹⁶ As individuals interact with their environment, their perceptual or physical limitations may inhibit their ability to meet the demands of the situation. When mismatches between human fallibility and context occur, barriers can mitigate or prevent unintended outcomes such as injury. The basic human error model presents a simple framework that can be used for understanding the major factors necessary to predict and prevent injury.

An exhaustive list of approaches modeling antecedent processes is beyond the scope of our effort here but at least two more deserve mentioning due to their presence in the injury literature. The Health Belief Model focuses on understanding how the adoption of preventative behaviors for health threats relies on beliefs about susceptibility, severity, self-efficacy, and the costs and benefits of adopting preventative behaviors.¹⁷ The Health Belief Model has been widely applied to injury risk behaviors such as biking without wearing a helmet¹⁸ and seat belt use.¹⁹ The theory of planned behavior examines the concurrent antecedent roles of subjective norms, attitudes, and perceived level of behavioral control in predicting intention to engage in risk behavior.⁴ This approach has seen use in pedestrian safety,¹⁰ seat belt use,¹⁹ and driving behaviors.²⁰ Each approach predicts intention to engage in health risk or protective behaviors.

Our goal is to provide a simple, theory-based method health practitioners may use for injury prevention in the context of working with patients and without having to devote significant time to the task. To this end, we have selected a set of four components from which practitioners can enact injury prevention. The components are inspired by antecedent models in the literature and draw primarily from the risk appraisal and human error approaches. Barriers, attitudes, social context, and environment (or “BASE”) offer practitioners four components that can be easily identified in individual cases and applied for injury prevention. Below, we outline the four components and describe the role of each in injury prevention. We purposely simplify the concepts in BASE to offer a useful structure to implement in conditions of time constraint and across individual characteristics and injury types.

Barriers

Barriers are any means of preventing risk behaviors or injury after a risk behavior is enacted.^21-23 Barriers, as used for our purpose, comprise only physical barriers. For example, a child stair gate might prevent a child from falling down a stairway, eliminating the risk of injury on the stairs. A bicycle helmet prevents serious head injury from occurring after a fall off a bicycle by providing a barrier between the skull and the ground. Some research within human factors expands the concept of barriers and includes more abstract mechanisms such as social, moralistic, and symbolic features.^24,25 However, for our purposes of providing a quick tool to curb injury risk, understanding barriers as physical means of preventing injury or injury behavior is sufficient.

Researchers have long used physical barriers as a tool for injury prevention and have examined their efficacy in various contexts. Injury prevention research has provided copious support for using barriers to prevent risk behaviors and prevent injury after risky behaviors. Using gates as a barrier to control access to fall risks,²⁶ 4-sided pool fencing to prevent drowning risk,²⁷ and child-proof packaging to prevent poisoning²⁸ are examples of barriers to prevent risk behavior. Safety harnesses for construction-related falls²⁹ and seatbelts to reduce transportation injuries³⁰ are examples of successful barrier use to prevent injuries. In sum, physical barriers are established tools for injury prevention by preventing risk behaviors and preventing injury after risk behaviors.

Attitudes

An attitude is a pre-existing disposition that colors a person’s approach to a given behavior. Attitude, as used for our purpose, comprises efficacy and perceived vulnerability in relation to risk behavior; two factors that are established in the injury literature in relation to various health risk behaviors.³¹ Efficacy can be described as a sense of capability of enacting and completing the injury risk behavior without being hurt^14,32 or a sense of control over the danger involved in a situation.³³ Perceived vulnerability is one’s perception of the personal risk associated with an injury.^4,17 The greater the sense of efficacy and the less perceived vulnerability to health risk, the more likely a person will enact the risk behavior.

Attitudes have been in use for some time as predictors of health risk behaviors. Notably, attitude toward risk behavior is an important concept in theories such as the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior.^4,34,35 Research employing the theory of planned behavior often finds attitude to be a significant predictor of intention to engage in injury risk behavior.¹⁰ Essentially, how an individual regards a particular risk behavior partly governs the likelihood of engaging in that behavior and is an important concept to consider in the context of external factors.

Social Context

Social context refers to the various influences that encourage or discourage injury risk behavior emerging from interaction with others. Social context, for our purposes, includes proximal group influences and the demonstration of risk behaviors by others. These two categories provide a multitude of factors with the potential to increase the likelihood of injury and have rich empirical support from the injury literature. Peer and social norms,³⁶ family context,³⁷ and safety culture³⁸ are all proximal group influences linked to injury risk. Other research has drawn a clear line between injury risk and the encouragement or demonstration of risk behaviors by others.¹⁴ People may imitate risk behaviors performed by others immediately or later from memory. Basically, the social component of BASE refers to the ways behavior is impacted by group culture and the observation of similar behaviors in others.

Social forces are part of the context in which injury risk behaviors occur. We can offer several examples. Peer social norms have been the targets of injury prevention among children.³⁶ Among adults, supervisors and coworkers form a social context modeling risk-taking behavior in the workplace.³⁹ Driving while intoxicated⁴⁰ or speeding⁴¹ are examples of behaviors open to social influence among drivers. Social context is established as a category of risk factors in injury etiology and plays a role in certain antecedent models.¹⁴

Environment

Environment is the physical context offering opportunities to engage in injury risk behaviors.¹⁴ In terms of etiology, environmental context can encourage or discourage risk behaviors.⁴² For example, long straight sections of roadway invite drivers to speed, but curved sections decrease driver speed.^43,44 On the other hand, rather than encouraging or discouraging risk behaviors, the environment could simply enable the possibility of risk behaviors. For example, stairs can enable the potential for a fall. Therefore, for our purpose, the environment is the current concrete context in which a person operates and in which injury risk behavior is afforded.

Human–environment interactions are essential components of injury and injury prevention. Injury researchers have studied the link between environmental characteristics and injury risk for quite some time now. Environmental features, especially for children, can have far more uses than their intended utilization.⁴⁵ Stairs, for example, are typically used to ascend and descend surfaces but may provide a surface of play for children or adults actively engaging in sports such as skateboarding.^46,47 Environments may also interact directly with individual characteristics to extract riskier behavior. When a context requires ability judgments on environmental factors at the edges of an individual’s capability, they are more likely to attempt a potentially dangerous action.⁹ Prevention efforts aimed at the environmental component of BASE can include removing an individual from a risky environment or introducing barriers into the system.²¹

Component Interactions

One might have noticed the four components of BASE can be intertwined. Take barriers and the environment, for example. Barriers exist within the physical context of the environment. A helmet, a handrail, and traction devices are all parts of the environment capable of reducing injury. However, to provide suggestions for barriers, which may not always be present, one must understand the physical environment in which barriers exist. We capture a critical part of the environment potentially overlooked in a time-constrained discussion by including barriers as a separate component in BASE. The components of BASE are intertwined but by thinking of them individually, a more robust method for preventing injury is offered.

Example Applications of BASE

Our goal is to provide an easy-to-remember method for injury prevention practitioners can apply. In the following section, we provide example risk behaviors relevant to practitioners for patients of various ages. For each example, we explore how BASE guides practitioner inquiry concerning safety measures already in place or suggesting new methods the patient or family may use. BASE components are shown across example risk behaviors and age groups in Table 1.

Table 1.

BASE Example Descriptions.

	Child	Child/Caregiver	Adult	Older Adult
Safety Problem	Pedestrian	Firearms Access	Motor Vehicle (driver)	Falling
B (physical preventive measures)	Presence or installation of crosswalks, signs, signals, or fences	Use of trigger locks, safes, and methods such as separate storage of gun and ammunition	Presence or installation of signs, signals, seatbelts, air bags, or anti-lock brakes	Installation of non-slip mats in key areas, handrails, and ramps rather than stairs
A (efficacy and perceived vulnerability)	Ensure child has a good understanding of their ability and the dangers of the pedestrian setting	Educate caregiver on the importance and effectiveness of safe storage practices. Enhance understanding of child capability access and operate firearms	Discuss limits of driving ability and target misperception of likelihood of being in an accident	Communicate increased risk for falls among older adults and discuss any misperception of likelihood of falling
S (demonstration/proximal group influences)	Practicing street crossings with a caregiver	Caregiver modeling of safe firearm handling and storage. Household values discouraging handling of firearms and endorsing safe storage	Peer context modeling safe driving behaviors and limiting distraction potential of passengers	Communicating ways in which other older adults have mitigated fall risk. Tackling influences of peers or social image creating resistance to implementation of preventative measures
E (immediate physical context)	Lighting, weather, design, and traffic of roads the child frequently crosses	Presence of firearms in the home	Road lighting, weather, design, and traffic conditions	Traction, surface friction, or variations in surface elevation (e.g., landings)

Child Pedestrian

Our first example is pedestrian behavior during middle childhood, roughly ages 5–10. Child pedestrian injury is a significant health problem influenced by multiple risk factors.⁴⁸ Quite obviously, higher traffic volume is one significant predictor of increased pedestrian injury risk⁴⁹ and other features, such as pedestrian refuge islands, can help mitigate the threat posed by traffic.⁵⁰ Among younger children, additional concerns for safety are posed by the nature of parental supervision during times when children are near roadways.⁵¹ Cognitive developmental factors are also at play. Younger children’s attentional capabilities are still developing and often function much less efficiently than adults’.⁵² Pedestrian safety is one of the most extensively examined categories of child injury, the nuances of which cannot be fully explored here. However, child pedestrian safety is one topic that can be readily addressed when practitioners find themselves working with parents and children.

Applying BASE, a practitioner is offered various conversation targets concerning child pedestrian safety. A practitioner might start by pointing out how crosswalks or pedestrian traffic signs increase safety if used appropriately (barrier). Ensuring the child has a good understanding of their abilities and the potential dangers of the road environment is another potential discussion point (attitude). The practitioner may also suggest the child take the lead when crossing with a caregiver in order to practice skills while under supervision to harness a powerful social learning opportunity (social).⁵³ Finally, discussing potentially dangerous environmental characteristics a child should not interact alone with, such as heavy traffic volume, high traffic speed, or low light conditions, could help ensure the child has optimal conditions to interact with traffic safely (environment).⁵⁴ Each element of the BASE model provides a target that may interact with each of the other aspects. Practitioners should use their best judgment when identifying what to target.

Child/Caregiver Firearm Access

Child access to firearms stored in the home serves as our second example of how BASE may be applied. Firearms are present in many American homes.⁵⁵ Research suggests parents use a variety of methods to store firearms, not all of which restrict child access.⁵⁶ Parents may underestimate children’s knowledge of where firearms are stored and ability to access a firearm.⁵⁷ Research also suggests the household culture surrounding the purpose of possessing firearms may play an etiological role, potentially deterring reckless behavior.⁵⁶ Alternatively, household culture could decrease risk depending on attitude toward safer storage interfering with the intended purpose of a firearm.⁵⁸ For example, teaching children that firearms are tools and are for use only in specific circumstances. Children’s access to firearms offers a way for practitioners to target a safety problem couched in the interaction between child and parent.

With BASE in mind, we see how each component can be used to identify ways to increase child safety in homes with firearms. Components need not be addressed in the order in which they are represented in our acronym. That is, we may begin here by simply determining the presence of firearms in the home (environment). If firearms are present, the practitioner may move on by inquiring about the kinds of storage techniques in use in the home (barrier). Caregivers can be educated on the importance and effectiveness of safe storage practices such as trigger locks, safes, separate storage of firearm and ammunition; all examples of effective methods.⁵⁹ The practitioner may enhance the caregiver’s understanding of child capability access and operate firearms or the caregiver’s ability to change storage methods (attitude). Indeed, some parents underestimate a child’s capability of accessing and operating a stored firearm.⁶⁰ The safety culture in the household should also be assessed (social) by inquiring whether caregivers' model safe firearm handling in front of children because children look to caregivers for examples of how to behave. Taken together, we see here an example of how a practitioner can use BASE to tackle a safety issue relevant to children by working indirectly through the caregiver.

Adult Driver

Our third example concerns an adult driver scenario. Motor vehicle collisions are one of the top causes of unintentional injury and death across the lifespan.¹ Risk factors relating to motor vehicle collisions include individual characteristics and contextual components.⁶¹ Age, personality characteristics, smartphone use, and weather have all been linked to motor vehicle collisions.^62-65 Protective factors, such as seatbelts, have been successful in reducing injuries related to collisions.⁶⁶ However, for adults, motor vehicle collisions are still a primary source of injury and death.

Similar to the other examples in this section, the practitioner can begin by assessing any component. The practitioner might begin by discussing potentially hazardous environmental conditions. The road condition, lighting, traffic conditions, and the weather could all be potential risk factors for injury (environment). The discussion of environmental factors might lead to a conversation regarding the driver’s ability to prevent an accident and the likelihood of being involved in a collision (attitude). Mitigating factors to injury might also be discussed, such as the use of seatbelts or the maintenance of their vehicle (barriers). A vehicle with functioning brakes, tires with sufficient tread, and using available safety mechanisms in the environment can provide powerful passive preventative mechanisms (barriers). Finally, the practitioner might want to discuss factors such as peer modeling of safe driving behaviors and limiting social distractions (social).⁶⁷ Moreover, social distractions do not need to share the same physical environment as the driver; a smartphone can also constitute a social distraction.⁶⁸

Older Adult Falls

Our final example, one concerning falls among older adults, reminds us injury prevention is a challenge across the lifespan. Unintentional falls are the 3rd leading cause of injury across the lifespan in the United States, peaking significantly for adults over the age of 65.¹ Some factors responsible for the increase in fall risk for older adults include cognitive and physical decline.⁶⁹ Reduction in muscle strength and balance, reduction in cognitive ability, reduced visual acuity, and environmental characteristics such as stairs are all associated with increased risk of falling.^70,71 Knowing some of the risk factors, practitioners can begin to reduce the likelihood of falls for older adults.^72,73

Much like our firearm storage example above, the practitioner may start by assessing environmental hazards in the home. The presence of issues such as traction problems, surface friction, or obstacles like stairs and landings may first be assessed (environment). Once the practitioner has gained a sense of environmental characteristics in the home, they may suggest barriers for preventing falls. As shown in Table 1, solutions here might include non-slip mats in key areas, installation of handrails, or use of ramps rather than stairs (barriers). The practitioner should at some points discuss increased risk for falls among older adults and identify any misperception of likelihood of falling (attitude). Ways in which other older adults have mitigated fall risk can be included, bringing influences of peers or social image into play (social). Fall risk offers another simple, conversational example of how BASE can be applied. Practitioners need not apply components in the order in which we have used them here but could begin with whichever component they feel is best or emerges naturally from the conversation with the patient.

Conclusion

Medical and public health practitioners are important contributors to the injury prevention process because they have the potential to identify and counteract antecedents.¹⁴ However, practitioners do not have the luxury of spending copious amounts of time on injury prevention. BASE offers a simple synthesis of some critical aspects of injury antecedent models practitioners can easily remember and implement.

In the preceding sections, we outlined four examples to illustrate how BASE can be applied. Our examples are merely a small subset of numerous ways BASE could be applied; actual application of BASE could take many forms. We must also note the process of applying BASE can emerge organically from the conversation with a patient and components may be applied in any order the practitioner feels is appropriate. Our hope is practitioners can make use of the simple method afforded by BASE to enact basic injury prevention or, at the very least, be inspired to employ prevention tactics using antecedent concepts in general.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Benjamin K. Barton

References

WISQARS . Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. National Center for Injury Prevention and ControlU.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2022. [online]Available at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars__;!!JYXjzlvb!2kzQKr575FCrB4KQvTNl2mUr-9vFYMboyQPvre0rYW2gghk2sFOBQguRu-0ag8RM$

Barton

Shen

Stavrinos

Davis

. Developmental aspects of unintentional injury prevention among youth: Implications for practice. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2019;13(6):565-573. doi:10.1177/1559827617745057

Watson

Errington

. Preventing unintentional injuries in children: Successful approaches. Paediatr Child Health. 2016;26(5):194-199. doi:10.1016/j.paed.2015.12.006

Sleet

Diekman

Ikeda

Gielen

. Preventing unintentional injury: A review of behavior change theories for primary care. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2010;4(1):25-31. doi:10.1177/1559827609349573

Morrongiello

Midgett

Stanton

. Gender biases in children's appraisals of injury risk and other children's risk-taking behaviors. J Exp Child Psychol. 2000;77(4):317-336. doi:10.1006/jecp.2000.2595

Schwebel

. Temperamental risk factors for children's unintentional injury: The role of impulsivity and inhibitory control. Pers Indiv Differ. 2004;37(3):567-578. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.027

Barton

Ulrich

Lyday

. The roles of gender, age and cognitive development in children's pedestrian route selection. Child Care Health Dev. 2012;38(2):280-286. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01202.x

Kovesdi

Barton

. The role of non-verbal working memory in pedestrian visual search. Transport Res F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2013;19:31-39. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.005

Plumert

Schwebel

. Social and temperamental influences on children's overestimation of their physical abilities: Links to accidental injuries. J Exp Child Psychol. 1997;67(3):317-337. doi:10.1006/jecp.1997.2411

10.

Barton

Kologi

Siron

. Distracted pedestrians in crosswalks: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Transport Res F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2016;37:129-137. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.12.012

11.

Sleet

Dellinger

. Using behavioral science theory to enhance public health nursing. Public Health Nurs. 2020;37(6):895-899. doi:10.1111/PHN.12795

12.

Haddon

. Advances in the Epidemiology of Injuries as a Basis for Public Policy; 1980. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422748/pdf/pubhealthrep00127-0003.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2018

13.

Rivara

Mueller

The Epidemiology and Causes of Childhood Injuries, 43; 1987. https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1987.tb01292.x. Accessed November 16, 2018

14.

Barton

Davis

Pugliese

. A Risk Appraisal Framework for Injury Etiology. Health Promot Pract; 2021;152483992110181. Published online. doi:10.1177/15248399211018167

15.

Hollnagel

. Human error” – trick or treat ? The pedigree of “human error. In: Durso

Nickerson

Dumais

Lewandowsky

Perfect

, eds Handbook of Applied Cognition. 2nd ed.. John Wiley & Sons; 2007:219-238

16.

Sharit

. Human error and human reliability analysis. In: Salvendy

, ed Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. 4th ed.. John Wiley & Sons;2012:734-800. doi:10.1002/9781118131350.ch26

17.

Janz

Becker

. The health belief model: A decade later. Heal Educ Behav. 1984;11(1):1-47. doi:10.1177/109019818401100101

18.

Ross

Rahman

Cataldo

. The bicycle helmet attitudes scale: Using the health belief model to predict helmet use among undergraduates. J Am Coll Heal. 2010;59(1):29-36. doi:10.1080/07448481.2010.483702

19.

Şimşekoǧlu

Lajunen

. Social psychology of seat belt use: A comparison of theory of planned behavior and health belief model. Transport Res F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2008;11(3):181-191. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2007.10.001

20.

Paris

Van den Broucke

. Measuring cognitive determinants of speeding: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Transport Res F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2008;11(3):168-180. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2007.09.002

21.

Hollnagel

. Barriers and Accident Prevention. Ashgate;2004

22.

Reason

Hollnagel

Paries

. Eurocontrol Experimental Centre. Revisiting the “Swiss Cheese” Model of Accidents. ECC Note No. 13/06. Brétigny-sur-Orge Cedex FRANCE;October 2006. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.researchgate.net/publication/285486777_Revisiting_the_Swiss_Cheese_Model_of_Accidents__;!!JYXjzlvb!2kzQKr575FCrB4KQvTNl2mUr-9vFYMboyQPvre0rYW2gghk2sFOBQguRu4O20cF0$

23.

Reason

. Human Error. Cambridge University Press;1990

24.

Hollnagel

. Risk+barriers=safety?. Saf Sci. 2008;46(2):221-229. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.028

25.

Porter

Bliss

Sleet

. Human factors in injury control. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2010;4(1):90-97. doi:10.1177/1559827609348679

26.

Cordovil

Barreiros

Vieira

Neto

. The efficacy of safety barriers for children: Absolute efficacy, time to cross and action modes in children between 19 and 75 months. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2009;16(3):143-151. doi:10.1080/17457300903024145

27.

Brenner

. Prevention of drowning in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2003;112(2 I):440-445. doi:10.1542/peds.112.2.440

28.

Rodgers

. The safety effects of child-resistant packaging for oral prescription drugs. JAMA. 1996;275(21):1661. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530450051032

29.

Chi

Chang

Ting

. Accident patterns and prevention measures for fatal occupational falls in the construction industry. Appl Ergon. 2005 Jul;36(4):391-400. Epub 2005 Feb 23. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.09.011

30.

Hoxie

Skinner

. Effects of Mandatory Seatbelt Use Laws on Highway Fatalities in 1985. US Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Report Number: DOT-HS-807-083;DOT-TSC-NHTSA-87-3; 1987 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/5887__;!!JYXjzlvb!2Mw3Z_u3xDCpIRBRcYdC9Yz44tRjYkYFHlUAKEbQtjMoAD-Rnxh-lHeCbOirWs6Q$

31.

Schwarzer

Fuchs

. Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors: The role of self-efficacy beliefs. In: Bandura

, ed Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press;1995:259-288. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527692.011

32.

Ajzen

. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(4):665-683. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

33.

Bandura

. Self-Efficacy. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. Vol 4. Academic Press;1994:71-81

34.

Gielen

Sleet

DiClemente

, eds Injury and Violence Prevention: Behavioral Science Theories, Methods, and Applications. Jossey-Bass/Wiley;2006

35.

Guerin

Sleet

. Using behavioral theory to enhance occupational safety and health: Applications to health care workers. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2020;15(3):269-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827619896979

36.

Morrongiello

Seasons

McAuley

Koutsoulianos

. Child pedestrian behaviors: Influence of peer social norms and correspondence between self-reports and crossing behaviors. J Safety Res. 2019;68:197-201. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2018.12.014

37.

Schwebel

. Why “accidents” are not accidental: Using psychological science to understand and prevent unintentional child injuries. Am Psychol. 2019;74(9):1137-1147. doi:10.1037/amp0000487

38.

Ward

Watson

Fleming-Vogl

, eds Traffic Safety Culture. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2019. doi:10.1108/9781787146174

39.

Westaby

Lowe

. Risk-taking orientation and injury among youth workers: Examining the social influence of supervisors, coworkers, and parents. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(5):1027-1035. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.1027

40.

Meesmann

Martensen

Dupont

. Impact of alcohol checks and social norm on driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Accid Anal Prev. 2015;80:251-261. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.016

41.

Conner

Lawton

Parker

Chorlton

Manstead

ASR

Stradling

. Application of the theory of planned behaviour to the prediction of objectively assessed breaking of posted speed limits. Br J Psychol. 2007;98(3):429-453. doi:10.1348/000712606X133597

42.

Allegrante

Hanson

Sleet

Marks

. Ecological approaches to the prevention of unintentional injuries. Ital J Public Health. 2010;7(2):24-31. doi:10.2427/5724

43.

Martens

Comte

Kaptein

. The Effects of Road Design on Speed Behaviour : A Literature ReviewThe European Commission under the Transport RTD Programme of the Fourth Framework Programme; 1997. Deliverable D1 http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/proj6/master/rep231.pdf

44.

Szplett

Butzier

. Designing speed controlled subdivisions without road humps. In: Enhancing Safety in the 21st Century. Transportation Frontiers for the Next Millennium: 69th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers; 1999. http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/CCA99A10.pdf%0Ahttps://trid.trb.org/view/506713

45.

Cordovil

Araújo

Pepping

Barreiros

. An ecological stance on risk and safe behaviors in children: The role of affordances and emergent behaviors. New Ideas Psychol. 2015;36:50-59. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.10.007

46.

Ulrich

Thelen

Niles

. Perceptual determinants of action: Stair-climbing choices of infants and toddlers. Adv Mot Dev Res. 1990;3:1-15

47.

Rodríguez-Rivadulla

Saavedra-García

MÁ

Arriaza-Loureda

. Skateboarding injuries in spain: A web-based survey approach. Orthop J Sport Med. 2020;8(3):232596711988490. doi:10.1177/2325967119884907

48.

Schwebel

Barton

. Contributions of multiple risk factors to child injury. J Pediatr Psychol. 2005;30(7):553-561. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsi042

49.

Roberts

Norton

Jackson

Dunn

Hassall

. Effect of environmental factors on risk of injury of child pedestrians by motor vehicles: A case-control study. BMJ. 1995;310(6972):91-94. doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6972.91

50.

Sadrayi

Boroujerdian

. Assessment of pedestrian refuge islands on vehicle speed changes and pedestrian safety: Case study in Tehran. J Traffic Logist Eng. 2016;4(1):41-46. doi:10.18178/jtle.4.1.41-46

51.

Barton

Morrongiello

. Examining the impact of traffic environment and executive functioning on children's pedestrian behaviors. Dev Psychol. 2011;47(1):182-191. doi:10.1037/a0021308

52.

Morrongiello

Barton

. Child pedestrian safety: Parental supervision, modeling behaviors, and beliefs about child pedestrian competence. Accid Anal Prev. 2009;41(5):1040-1046. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.06.017

53.

Barton

Schwebel

Morrongiello

. Brief report: Increasing children's safe pedestrian behaviors through simple skills training. J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32(4):475-480. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsl028

54.

Barton

. Integrating selective attention into developmental pedestrian safety research. Can Psychol. 2006;47(3):203-210. doi:10.1037/cp2006010

55.

Hamilton

Lemeshow

Saleska

Brewer

Strobino

. Who owns guns and how do they keep them? The influence of household characteristics on firearms ownership and storage practices in the United States. Prev Med. 2018;116:134-142. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.07.013

56.

Barton

Kologi

. Why do you keep them there? A qualitative assessment of firearms storage practices. J Pediatr Nurs. 2015;30(2):285-293. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2014.08.002

57.

Baxley

Miller

. Parental misperceptions about children and firearms. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(5):542-547. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.5.542

58.

Aitken

Minster

Mullins

, et al. Parents' perspectives on safe storage of firearms. J Community Health. 2020;45(3):469-477. doi:10.1007/s10900-019-00762-2

59.

Miller

Azrael

Hemenway

Vriniotis

. Firearm storage practices and rates of unintentional firearm deaths in the United States. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37(4):661-667. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.02.003

60.

Howard

. Parents' beliefs about children and gun safety. Pediatr Nurs. 2005;31(5):374-379

61.

Ball

Owsley

. Driving competence: It’s not a matter of age. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(10):1499-1501. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51487.x

62.

Caird

Johnston

Willness

Asbridge

Steel

. A meta-analysis of the effects of texting on driving. Accid Anal Prev. 2014;71:311-318. doi:10.1016/J.AAP.2014.06.005

63.

Gulliver

Begg

. Personality factors as predictors of persistent risky driving behavior and crash involvement among young adults. Inj Prev. 2007;13(6):376-381. doi:10.1136/ip.2007.015925

64.

Schwebel

Ball

Severson

Barton

Rizzo

Viamonte

. Individual difference factors in risky driving among older adults. J Safety Res. 2007;38(5):501-509. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.04.005

65.

Weng

Meng

. Effects of environment, vehicle and driver characteristics on risky driving behavior at work zones. Saf Sci. 2012;50(4):1034-1042. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.005

66.

Sauber-Schatz

Ederer

Dellinger

Baldwin

. Vital signs: Motor vehicle injury prevention - United States and 19 comparison countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Jul 6;65(26):672-677. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6526e1

67.

Zhang

Mehrotra

Roberts

. Driving distracted with friends: Effect of passengers and driver distraction on young drivers' behavior. Accid Anal Prev. 2019;132:105246. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.07.022

68.

Strayer

. Is the technology in your car driving you to distraction? Policy Insights from Behav Brain Sci. 2015;2(1):157-165. doi:10.1177/2372732215600885

69.

Fernando

Fraser

Hendriksen

Kim

Muir-Hunter

. Risk factors associated with falls in older adults with dementia: A systematic review. Physiother Canada. 2017;69(2):161-170. doi:10.3138/ptc.2016-14

70.

Deandrea

Lucenteforte

Bravi

Foschi

Vecchia

Negri

. Risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older people. Source Epidemiol. 2010;21(5):658-668. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e89905

71.

Gale

Westbury

Cooper

Dennison

. Risk factors for incident falls in older men and women: The English longitudinal study of ageing. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):1-9. doi:10.1186/S12877-018-0806-3

72.

Sarmiento

Lee

. STEADI: CDC's approach to make older adult fall prevention part of every primary care practice. J Safety Res. 2017;63:105-109. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2017.08.003

73.

Rogers

Haddad

Legha

Stannard

Auerbach

Eckstrom

. CDC STEADI: Best Practices for Developing an Inpatient Program to Prevent Older Adult Falls after Discharge. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published 2021 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/108535. Accessible online at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.cdc.gov/steadi__;!!JYXjzlvb!2kzQKr575FCrB4KQvTNl2mUr-9vFYMboyQPvre0rYW2gghk2sFOBQguRu13mXgD7$ Accessed January 13, 2022

BASE: Pragmatic Injury Prevention for Practitioners

Abstract

Keywords

Grouping Antecedents in Useful Ways

Barriers

Attitudes

Social Context

Environment

Component Interactions

Example Applications of BASE

Child Pedestrian

Child/Caregiver Firearm Access

Adult Driver

Older Adult Falls

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References