action on injury: setting the agenda for children and young people in the uk

by:Powerful Toys     2019-11-19
The injury to magnitzde is a burden to the health system, far exceeding the burden caused by many popular diseases.
Most countries in the developed world spend a lot of health budgets on diseases that exist in vocal constituencies, or those that are considered interesting or important by doctors.
Unlike most popular diseases, however, injury prevention is easier and cheaper.
Globally, a significant amount of money for research and care has been invested in a surprisingly small number of diseases.
Some ancient diseases remain the main focus of public health activity, while injuries are still neglected in most countries.
Fortunately, all this has begun to change in the UK.
The appointment of the Minister of Public Health is an important step in the right direction.
Similarly, the importance of the Minister of Transport on issues related to safety is welcome fresh air.
In particular, however, inequality persists, especially in terms of funding. Why is this? googletag. {});
For the seemingly unreasonable allocation of resources between other diseases and injuries, the most likely explanation is that policy makers, like the majority of the public, continue to treat injuries as \"accidents\", that is, random behavior with bad luck and therefore not suitable for prevention.
Another possible reason is that, as suggested, there is no urgent need for more help from the national injury victim agency or their families.
Nevertheless, unless policy makers are fully convinced that harm is a preventable disease, we cannot expect to allocate more resources to them.
Those who control the wallet have to be persuaded that most injuries are really preventable, and if they are not done, the cost is significantly higher than the relatively small cost of prevention.
In a few places in this supplementary figure, this is brought forward convincingly.
It is curious that, although there is a culture that allegedly prefers prevention rather than treatment, most countries do not invest enough resources to achieve this preference.
What is even more surprising is that when such expenditures occur, they are often conditioned on the unclear means of prevention or the lack of adequate support from scientific evidence.
However, the opposite is true in terms of injury prevention: Although there is solid evidence that prevention is effective, it costs very little.
What must be done in the UK and elsewhere to change this?
Three steps must be taken.
Inevitably, sufficient funds must be allocated for Injury Prevention to study and implement programmes that are currently known to be effective or that will prove effective in the future.
Surprisingly, the amount involved may not be large.
Many of the most effective solutions depend on legislation or regulations.
The cost of introducing such measures is low, but there is a lot of evidence that, for example, the law on the use of helmets has been successful in preventing head injuries.
Similarly, the law to reduce the speed limit is cheap and effective, and although the speed camera costs more, these costs are dwarfed by those who take care of the victims of serious injuries.
Care for children or adults with severe head injuries-
People who need sustained life support or lifelong rehabilitation
It costs the country several pounds a year.
Of course, the costs associated with the implementation of any legislation are substantial.
But there is evidence that, even if there is no enforcement, the intended goal will be partially achieved once such legislation is introduced and widely publicized.
Needless to say, passing or enforcing the law alone does not prevent all harm.
Many will need variants of extensive mass education, health promotion and old-fashioned Health Access.
Others require imaginative approaches that are best implemented by voluntary agencies.
But if these groups are expected to be more involved in public health work in some areas, it is reasonable to provide them with adequate support to do so.
These groups need to not only fund specific projects, but also continue to fund administrative costs, including key staff.
Forcing them to live-to-
It is not acceptable to reflect the sponsor\'s preference rather than the opposite.
The government\'s beauty is unreasonable --
In order to save money, we still look forward to the completion of this work.
Finally, there is insufficient funding for research.
Although the knowledge base in injury prevention is very large, there are still huge gaps and many unanswered questions.
These range from a better understanding of the role of gender differences in injury occurrence to the development of better methods to measure exposure to risk.
Most importantly, evaluation studies are required whenever new programmes are introduced.
Establishing jurisdiction in the context of discussing health issues, the concept of \"jurisdiction\" may seem odd.
Perhaps \"responsibility\" is a better term, but it seems important that some of the nuances conveyed by the former.
As shown in the two tables in the following section, although funding is generally insufficient, the list of government, private and voluntary injury prevention participants remains large.
The difficulty is that when there are so many people involved, there is likely to be a lot of repetitive work, and more worrying is that important areas will be ignored.
The current situation in the UK is that there is no single agency, branch, or department with jurisdiction or responsibility to coordinate the work of all other relevant personnel, and there is no agency to ensure that there are no major omissions.
To be sure, this is a complex and sensitive issue, but to establish jurisdiction --
Decide who has the ultimate responsibility and power if necessary
Travel decisions or policies of other players-
In my opinion, this is essential.
Political considerations have made it all so difficult.
As mentioned earlier, in the UK, as in most countries, many people in different sectors of government, as well as in the voluntary and private sectors, have played a role.
One department said to the other, \"On this particular issue, your decision is not fully taken into account the safety of our children, and this is a delicate issue;
We therefore intend to withdraw these decisions \".
In an ideal world, all actors work together to achieve a common goal.
They will share a value system that puts health and safety above the need to protect profits or fast mobile traffic for merchants or manufacturers.
It is a pity that life does not unfold in the real world.
Therefore, without clear and strong leadership, the UK cannot hope to achieve what was achieved in Sweden a long time ago, nor the rapidly emerging achievements of the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
This should come from the health department as I think.
Because treating injured people is the responsibility of the health care system, the primary responsibility for preventing injuries should also fall in the health sector.
Whether this responsibility is more directly present in the field of public health is a secondary issue compared to clinical medicine.
A mix of the two may be required.
Both clinical medicine and public health can contribute in an important way.
The evidence cannot be convincing that clinicians who provide counseling are effective in changing behavior or lifestyle, but better research, treating counseling or education as a complement to other strategies, this will prove that a doctor or nurse is an important part of the secret to success.
Similarly, evidence of public health exercises, such as home visits including injury prevention counselling or family safety checks, is somewhat uncertain.
Although not all home visits were conducted by public health nurses in studies reviewed by Roberts and others, their reasons for doing so were convincing.
2 These nurses are infantry who are public health and require individual interventionson-
There is no reasonable alternative to a contact.
Despite these unique contributions made by the health sector, as it stands, many other departments of the central and local governments have a greater stake in Injury Prevention, which involves the health sector\'s
Examples of considering road safety: it is traffic transport that determines most aspects of road design, and it is justice that determines penalties for drunk driving, speeding and other such violations.
With respect to other safety issues, the regulation of unsafe or potentially dangerous products and housing is trade and industry, with regulations or regulations designed to prevent injuries to young children and the elderly.
The list is long, but rarely includes health.
In addition, there are many other aspects that are neither part of the government nor part of the health system, and their skills and commitments need to be mobilized to strengthen security.
The engineering and technical departments have made great contributions through the invention of equipment such as helmets, seat restraint devices and airbags.
They must be encouraged to do so by repeatedly reminding them that security is an important part of the profits of most businesses.
Is it unrealistic to suggest that the Ministry of Health take greater responsibility for this issue?
Obviously, it\'s not, according to this addition.
However, the question remains, how far should the health sector go along this route, and what means?
This supplementary contributor has made great progress in answering this question.
In discussions based on these thoughtful documents, there is no doubt that other ideas will be expressed when the agenda is completed.
I expect a lot of effort will be made to remind us that the voluntary sector is dealing with a major part of this issue, for example, it is provided by groups such as the children\'s Accident Prevention Trust Fund and the Royal Accident Prevention Association, and sometimes by the private sector.
Such a reminder should not be needed.
For those reading this supplement, the National Centre for Injury Prevention has several key elements that make up the bottom line and they have decided to take \"action \".
In addition to the need for action to provide a stronger sense of direction and serious discussions on responsibility, leadership and coordination, there must be clear evidence of commitment.
When infant mortality in many countries lags behind Japan, most countries, including the UK, have succeeded because they promised to do so.
The injury mortality rate in Sweden has long been a similar target;
They tell us what\'s possible.
With determination, organization and proper allocation of resources, this rate should be easy to achieve in the UK.
Finally, the government and others must agree that harm prevention is a priority.
This is not an easy thing, and there is no doubt that it requires strong leadership from someone or a group.
Sweden\'s success is largely due to the inspiring leadership of a pioneer;
America\'s achievements are attributed to a timely document from a well-known source.
In both cases, the mechanism established to ensure the success of the commitment amounts to the National Centre for Injury Prevention.
Without something like that, it is impossible for Britain to succeed.
The government\'s commitment to reducing inequality in health conditions is interesting.
I appreciate that, because in the area of health, the gap between the rich and the poor is rarely more notable and regrettable than almost all types of child injuries.
If this commendable goal is to be achieved, national centres must be established in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to ensure that the necessary harm actions are taken fully and promptly.
The Trauma Research Council, the Life Science Council, the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.
Injuries in the United States: ongoing public health problems.
Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 1985.
Robert I, MS Kramer, Suissa S.
Do home visits prevent child injuries?
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 1996; 312:29–33.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...