Child and Parent Behaviors Involved in Ingestion Incidents


Published on


Comments are closed

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Nutritive and non-nutritive sucking Piaget Smith & Norris, 2003: 26 items peak per day is 6-9 months olds. Longest mouthing events: 6-9 month olds
  • Reference: Davis CM. Self selection of diet by newly weaned infants: an experimental study. Am J Dis Child 1928;36(4):651-79. Davis CM. Results of the self-selection of diets by young children. Can Med Assoc J 1939;41:257-61.
  • Quotes from Garzon, Lee & Homan, 2007: “ Although parents are knowledgeable about home injury hazards, they often overestimate the young child’s ability to identify injury hazards and high-risk situations (Morrongiello, Midgett, & Shields, 2001).” “ Additionally, many parents are not aware of how children’s behaviors result in increased injury risk (Morrongiello & Dayler, 1996; Morrongiello & Kiriakou, 2004).” “ Therefore, children under 5 years are vulnerable to home injury in situations where their parents are not knowledgeable about potential hazards or when they are unaware of their child’s abilities (Saluja et al., 2004). Despite the promotion of adult supervision to prevent childhood injury, little research describes the relationship between parental supervisory practice and injury occurrence in young children, and there are no accepted standards for age-appropriate child supervision (Peterson, Ewigman, & Kivilhand, 1993; Wills et al., 1997).”
  • Quotes from Garzon, Lee & Homan (2007) (n=100 families): “ 1 injury for every 167 hours spent awake in the home.” (1-4 year olds) “ Parents reported using supervision as a means for decreasing child injury risk, but 80% of the injuries occurred when the child was supervised. These findings suggest that some injuries may not be preventable solely by parental attention and close physical proximity.”
  • Quote from Morrongiello, Corbett, McCourt & Johnson (2006) (n=40 families): “ Children were supervised more often than unsupervised but were completely out of view of supervisors about 20% of their awake time, and supervision was poorer when out of view of supervisors. Older children (4–5 years) were unsupervised (8% of awake time) more often than younger children (2–3 years; 1%), were more often out of view of supervisors than younger children, and received poorer supervision than younger children when out of view of supervisors.”
  • Child and Parent Behaviors Involved in Ingestion Incidents

    1. 1. Child and Parent Behaviors Involved in Ingestion Incidents Jonathan Midgett, Ph.D. Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction ICPHSO, Arlington, VA, USA February 27, 2013These comments are those of the CPSC staff, they have not been reviewed or approved by, and may not necessarily reflect, the views of the Commission.
    2. 2. “Why are you eating that?!”• Nutrition, comfort, exploration, teething• Primary circular reactions• 26 items per day peak average (Smith & Norris, 2003) – Average daily mouthing time: 1 hour, 3 minutes – Longest maximum mouthing time: • On toys= 03:46:46 • On other objects= 02:57:58
    3. 3. “That’s yucky!”• Children will taste anything (Davis, 1939).
    4. 4. “You know better than that!”• Caregivers overestimate children’s understanding of risk (Morrongiello, Midgett & Shields, 2001)• Parent predictions poor (Morrongiello & Kiriakou, 2004)
    5. 5. “Look out!”• 1 injury per 167 hours awake (Garzon, Lee & Homan, 2007) Percent of injuries occurring during supervision: 80%
    6. 6. “Peek-a-boo!”• Out of view: 20% of awake time (78 min.)• Unsupervised time: – 4-5 year olds: 8% of awake time (32 min.) – 2-3 year olds: 1% of awake time (5 min.) (Morrongiello, Corbett, McCourt & Johnson, 2006)
    7. 7. Safety Hierarchy Effectiveness Design Guard Warn
    8. 8. Injury Mitigation Possibilities• Design: – Decrease lethality – Make shapes that cannot be swallowed• Guard: – Prevent or slow access• Warn: – Enhance public awareness – Interactive warning labels
    9. 9. Injury Mitigation Possibilities• Enhance diagnostic ease: – Saliva-activated dye – Radio-opaque markings
    10. 10. CPSC Stands For SafetyJonathan Midgett, Ph.D.Children’s Hazards Team CoordinatorOffice of Hazard Identification and ReductionU.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission5 Research PlaceRockville, MD 20850(301)