| Objectives1.To provide a systematic understanding on epidemiological characteristics and risk factors for children’s animal-injury in China based on systematic reviews.2.To understand epidemiological characteristics and influencing factors in primary schools pupils’dog-bite injury and analyze knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices related to dog-bite injury.3. To compare the pupils’knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices related to dog-bite injury between urban and rural areas, and provide scientific evidence preventing dog-bite injury among pupils.Methods1.Four Chinese databases-CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang were comprehensively searched for on children’s animal injury studies in China, and the Joanna Briggs Institute2005methodological evaluation standards (JBI2005) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.Epidemic characteristics and risk factors in included studies were descriptive analyzed, such as animal injury epidemic status, causes of injury, place of injury, peak time of injury, and so on.2. Typical sampling method was used to select primary schools for objects, as1in Qilihe District of Lanzhou city and2in Jingtai County. Across-sectional questionnaire survey method was used to investigate pupils and parents in grade3-6pupils’dog-bite injury and knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices. Epidata3.1software and SPSS18.0were used to data input data and descriptive analysis. Mean, standard deviation were used to analyze quantitative data, while incidence data, constituent ratio, frequency distribution and chi-square test were used to analyze qualitative data.Results1. Initially3331documents were retrieved and19were included after reading full text in the systematic review stage, and included studies were in low quality according to methodological evaluation standards (JBI,2005). The systematic reviews stage showed that the incidence rate of animal injury among children was high, boys injury incidence was higher than girls, dogs were the most frequency animal for the injury, and it was happened in summer and autumn, more than95percent of the injured children would get vaccinate within12to24hours after the occurrence of the injury, and children in rural areas were higher than urban children who injured by animals.2. The results from the survey for the primary schools on the dog-bite injury among pupils were as followed:in the2833children investigated,684were got dog-bite injury which accounted24.18%while455boys and229girls. The boys’incidence on dog-bite was higher than the girls which had significant difference. Arms and hands (46.98%) were the main parts of dog-bite sites, which were followed by legs and feet which accounted46.6%, while faces and necks injuries were relatively small, which were3.9%,1.7%respectively. The dogs which caused than injury were mostly owned by their own families, which accounted52.18%, while36.74%were others’dogs. Only11.07%injuries were caused by stray dogs. The main reasons of dog-bite injury were playing with the dogs or intentionally teasing dogs (55.20%), which followed by who didn’t provoke dogs (41.11%), and then who injured by dogs with rabies attack accounted3.36%. The incidence of dog-bite injury was seasonal as the peak time was in June, July (respectively17.78%,15.27%), while the injury incident in October, November and December were3.19%,2.18%,2.68%respectively.3. The results from the single regression analysis were as followed:the risk factors on dog-bite injury incidence were the gender (χ2=34.513, P<0.05), frequency of exposure with the dogs (χ2=84.786, P<0.05), considering on whether the dog-bite injury can be prevent or not (χ2=8.298, P=0.004) from the children’s questionnaire, and the he risk factors on dog-bite injury incidence were the residence type (χ2=4.021, P=0.045), the households type(χ2=9.318, P=0.025), the only child in families or not(χ2=7.325,P=0.007), fathers’education levels(χ2=14.525,P=0.001), mothers’ education levels (χ2=8.563,P=0.014), parents taught for preventing the injury or not(χ2=5.480,P=0.019), owned dogs or not in households (χ2=70.682,P=0.000), who the children lived with (χ2=6.54, P=0.002) and so on. The results from the logistic regression analysis were as followed:boys, who consider the injury cannot be prevent, rural residence type and raised dogs in households were the risk factors, while the less frequency of dogs contact, only child in households and parents taught for prevention were protective factors.4. Results from the KABP analysis were as followed:the dog-bite injury knowledge score was53.63in these3primary schools while the urban children’s scores were less than the rural ones. The dog-bite injury incidence was higher among children who agreed with dangerous attitudes, and the rural children’s dangerous level was higher than urban ones. Children who had dangerous actions when accompanied with dogs had the higher incidence than ones who didn’t, and the rural children’s dangerous level was higher than urban ones.Conclusions1. There were more studies on animal injuries while generally in low quality, and the studies focused on dog-bite injuries were less, so there was a urgent need on high-quality studies.2. Most children wouldn’t receive treatment after dog-bite injuries; children from families with on parent had higher incidence form the survey in three primary schools in Gansu province. At the same time, the children’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviors were at lower level and they had some misunderstanding and improper behaviors on the dog-bite injuries.3. For the rural children, they acquired more knowledge on dog-bite injury than the urban ones, while their dangerous levels were higher as they had more chances contacting with dogs. Effectively intervention actions needed to be implemented for the rural children for reducing the incidence. |
PDF Full Text Request