borough have its own HVA
borough have its own HVA
Q2. Must every small town or borough have its own HVA? Why or why not?
Must every small town or borough have its own HVA?
Even though this should not be a must, we all know that disasters are local. For this reason it is important for emergency planners to keep in mind that every plan should match the needs of our local community (Perry and Lindell, 2007). Furthermore, conducting a HVA at a regional or state level may avoid the waste of time and resources which might be required to sustain the assessments at county, or local levels. However, the down side of such approach is that planners might not relevant information related to local community. Realities at regional level might not be seen or experienced from the same perspective at local level. It is therefore necessary for us to seize up the situation based on the local realities. Besides, assessments conducted at different levels will not represent the same distribution of population or their exposure to potential existing threats. In other words, the local realities and the context might be quite different from those addressed at state level. The county plan needs to be as specific as possible with measures addressing realities inherent to the town. Besides, as plans are living document that can be updated regularly, it is important to start at least with the initial HVA a local (county/Town) level. Then, when this times comes for some revisions in, planner will not need to look for local details as for the initial assessment.
Furthermore, conducting a HVA a local level allow the best involvement of the local communities in the planning process. Interaction between planners, departments, personals and representatives of the different organizations throughout the planning process is a great opportunity for people to know each other, to buy-in and convey their different point of views about local opportunities and challenge that may arise during emergency response. Involving local community in the planning is a proven instrument for more sustainable output and multiplies the rate of successful realization of development by people because it is more likely to produce a set of outcomes actually desired by the community (Kaur, 2007). The HVA is a way to know the local capabilities to that can be included in the plan. For this reason, assessing a town or county may help to discover neighborhood associations and civic organizations which can contribute to build up local resources that will be useful during recovery phase. These groups are made of active citizens who can become important voices in local government, they provide a basis for policy formulation etc. They can also pass along official messages to friend and neighbors, and they can also act as pools of volunteers in support to emergency response and recovery processes.
In sum, allowing the city to proceed with its own HVA and can open opportunity for consultation with people interested in, or affected by the project to offer their point of view before a decision is made.
Kaur G. (2007): Participatory Approach/ Community Involvement in Planning: Retrieved from:
Perry W.P. and Lindell K. L (2007): Emergency planning, USA
HVA is a process for identifying the city’s or facility’s highest vulnerabilities to natural and man-made hazards and the direct and indirect effect these hazards may have on the area and community. When a town or a borough identify their own vulnerabilities and build their HVA on those vulnerabilities, they will have an analysis that specifically meets their needs and fill any gap in the disaster preparation process. The HVA for any city should be reviewed and evaluated on a yearly basis or after a major event, this is because conditions change and necessities alter regularly even for the same area, this raises the need for an exclusive HVA for any area. Doing so will keep the emergency preparedness efforts as applicable as they should be.
The city resources acquiring strategies and training program will need an HVA that is based on an extensive analysis of the city’s hazards from both statistical and magnitude approach. Resources deployment process to emergency professionals training programs and public awareness campaign will be disrupted and the efficiency will be lower than expected if the HVA of the city is not exclusive to the city.
A town’s HVA is a primary resource for the town’s facilities. Hospitals and institutions will need a reliable resource that fulfills the need for a thorough evaluation of the hazards the area is exposed to. For example, when an institution like Jefferson Hospital wants to develop their own HVA, first they will look into the Philadelphia’s HVA, then they will adjust the analysis areas to be consistent with the hospital’s situation.
Hazards Vulnerability Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Inj Prev 1998;4:302-307 doi:10.1136/ip.4.4.302
Using the Haddon matrix: introducing the third dimension
Carol W Runyan
+ Author Affiliations
University of North Carolina, Injury Prevention Research Center and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health
Correspondence to: Dr Carol Runyan, Director, UNC Injury Prevention Research Center, CB 7505 Chase Hall, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599–7505, USA.
William Haddon Jr developed his conceptual model, the Haddon matrix, more than two decades ago applying basic principles of public health to the problem of traffic safety.1, 2 Since that time, the matrix has been used as a tool to assist in developing ideas for preventing injuries of many types. As such, it provides a compelling framework for understanding the origins of injury problems and for identifying multiple countermeasures to address those problems. However, users then must decide for themselves among the alternatives. This paper adds a third dimension to the matrix to facilitate its use for making decisions about which countermeasures to apply.
The matrix of four columns and three rows combines public health concepts of host-agent-environment as targets of change with the concepts of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention.3, 4 More specifically, the factors defined by the columns in the matrix refer to the interacting factors that contribute to the injury process (see tables 1 and 2). The host column refers to the person at risk of injury. The agent of injury is energy (for example mechanical, thermal, electrical) that is transmitted to the host through a vehicle (inanimate object) or vector (person or other animal). Physical environments include all the characteristics of the setting in which the injury event takes place (for example a roadway, building, playground, or sports arena). Social and legal norms and practices in the culture are referred to as the social environment. Examples include norms about child discipline or alcohol consumption or policies about licensing drivers or sales of firearms.
View this table: In this window In a new window
Haddon matrix applied to the problem of residential fires caused by cigarettes igniting upholstered furniture
View this table: In this window In a new window
Haddon matrix applied to the problem of school violence by firearms
The phases in Haddon’s initial configuration referred to rows in the matrix. These are the phases at which change would have its effect—pre-crash, crash, or post-crash. These have been broadened beyond the motor vehicle arena to encompass other injury problems by using the terms “pre-event,” “event” and “post-event”. Thus, by identifying interventions that fit within each cell of the matrix one can generate a list of strategies for addressing a variety of injury or other public health problems.
How to use the Haddon matrix
As indicated in table 3, the first step in planning, whether using the matrix or any other technique, is to identify clearly the problem to be addressed using appropriate data from the community to assess need. Before using the matrix to derive potential interventions, it is necessary to identify the injury issue to be addressed; for example, falls from playground equipment, bicycle crashes, bathtub drownings, child physical abuse, or residential fires. Second, one needs to define each row and column of the matrix. For example, as in table 1, the host is the child in the home experiencing the fire. The vehicles in this example are the cigarettes, matches, or flammable upholstery fabrics. The home and its immediate environs, including adjoining structures (for example a garage) represents the physical environment. The social environment refers to the social norms, policies, and procedures that govern such practices as how buildings are constructed, installation of smoke detectors, the use of space heaters, and the use of alcohol by residents.
View this table: In this window In a new window
Steps in using the three dimensional Haddon matrix
Most injuries are the result of a sequence of events representing a continuum of activity, rather than a discrete moment in time defined as the event. Consequently, it is critical that the rows of the matrix also be defined carefully. In most situations, the event could be defined in a variety of ways depending on one’s perspective. In the residential fire and school violence examples provided in tables 1 and 2, the event might be defined as the moment the cigarette is dropped in a wastebasket, or the point at which the sofa ignites or when the room is engulfed in flames, or when the whole house is on fire, or when the child is overcome by carbon monoxide. Likewise, in the case of school violence, the event might be the time the teenager takes out the firearm from his or her backpack, the moment he or she points it at a crowd on the playground or the point in time when it is fired, or when it strikes another individual.5 The choice is arbitrary, but is important so as to anchor one’s thinking about what comes before and after the event.
Once both dimensions of the matrix have been carefully defined, individual or group brainstorming is useful to generate ideas about interventions in each of the cells. If participants are from different disciplines, they will bring different perspectives to the problem and to solutions, enriching the overall pool of ideas. By applying the principles of brainstorming in which all ideas are recorded without critical comment before discussion, the process can yield a wide variety of options.
In this process it is frequently tempting, but incorrect, to identify the phase of the strategy in terms of when the strategy was put into place. For example, the smoke detector or sprinkler system was installed as the house was being constructed. However, it has its effect at the time of the event (that is when the smoke filled the room and the detector sounded). Consequently, the smoke detector is properly classified as an event phase strategy. A pre-event strategy would be redesigning cigarettes so they self extinguish before having a chance to ignite upholstery. When filling in the cells of the matrix, a sentence completion exercise can be helpful. That is, one might state: “…… (idea) is an intervention to affect a change in …… (factor), having its effect at the time of …… (phase).”
Examples of completed matrices for residential fires and school violence appear in tables 1 and 2 respectively. For many injury problems, particularly those involving repeat occurrences, strategies identified in the post-event phase may actually be effective as pre-event strategies for a subsequent event. For example, efforts to deal with a violent offender are often directed at avoiding a future violent offense. Consequently, the strategy is both post-event in the context of one event and may be pre-event in the context of preventing the occurrence of future events. Similarly, efforts to punish and rehabilitate a drunk driver who has had a crash (a post-event strategy) serves as a pre-event strategy for future potential incidents.
Expanding the matrix for decision making
Once alternative intervention strategies are identified, program planners and decision makers need to choose among the strategies. By applying principles of policy analysis,6–8 this process can become systematized, permitting concrete articulation of those values that guide the decision process.
Policy analysis typically involves a series of steps including: problem identification, identification of alternative policy options, and identification of values to be assessed relative to each option. Then the analyst uses a process by which each option is assessed according to the extent to which it adheres to the values identified as important. Following this, the analyst chooses among the options. Once they are implemented, others can evaluate their success and the information can be incorporated into future analyses of alternatives. The policies or other interventions considered can be new or may reflect policies or programs already in place.
The third dimension of the matrix proposed here incorporates the use of value criteria in the decision making process (fig 1). Each needs to be carefully thought through in the context of the injury countermeasure being considered, whether a policy (for example drinking age laws), a program (for example training of bartenders not to serve underage or inebriated customers), or a technological intervention (for example ignition interlock device).
View larger version: In a new window Download as PowerPoint Slide
Proposed three dimensional Haddon matrix.
The assessment process can be done either quantitatively or qualitatively. To accomplish the task, the decision maker must determine the relative weights to be placed on each value—for example, how much is the cost of conducting the intervention to be valued compared with the potential effectiveness of the intervention when applied. Though this process is not easy, it has the potential to be extremely helpful in encouraging a community group or agency board to consider and articulate what factors are important determinants of their decisions.
SELECTING VALUE CRITERIA
Social policy analysts suggest some standard criteria for evaluating all policies, with additional ones often added for specific problem areas.6–9 For example, a list of values pertinent to motor vehicle safety at railroad crossings were suggested by Wakeland, as referenced in Waller’s book, Injury Control.10
A set of value criteria are listed here only as suggestions to provide a starting point for injury intervention planners. Such criteria will vary according to the injury problem and the setting. Likewise, the types of information available for assessing each also will differ. Suggested criteria include: effectiveness, cost, freedom, equity, stigmatization, preferences of the affected community or individuals, and feasibility. As described below, each has several dimensions. For each, there are various ways one might determine how well a given countermeasure embodies a particular value criterion.
Central to any discussion of public health interventions is the criterion of effectiveness; in other words, “How well does the intervention work when applied?” To assess effectiveness of a particular intervention, one might use information available from the literature describing the efficacy of the intervention under controlled conditions or effectiveness of applications of the intervention in other locales. Assessment may require estimation based on information about similar types of interventions associated with other problems or related dimensions of the intervention. For example, the planner might estimate the effectiveness of a media campaign about smoke detectors based on what is known about the effectiveness of media campaigns to encourage use of some other device such as cabinet safety latches or bicycle helmets.
Cost of an intervention activity can be considered in several ways. One way is to consider the costs of implementing and enforcing the program or policy—for example including expenses associated with such elements as advocacy efforts, promotional activities, implementation of the program, or enforcement of a law. In addition, the planner might separately assess who bears the costs of a particular program and value the criterion differently according to how the costs are borne by different parties affected—for example, by potentially injured persons or their families, the taxpayers, or the manufacturer of a product. It is also appropriate to balance these costs with those associated with choosing not to implement the intervention.
With most public health interventions, the freedom of some group may have to be compromised to achieve the intended goal.9 For example, motorcyclists sacrifice freedom to ride unrestricted when a helmet law is passed. Manufacturers required to make children’s sleepwear from flame resistant fabrics have their freedom restricted. In some cases, the freedoms of one group are in conflict with those of another. For example, when a government decides to permit the carrying of concealed guns, those members of the community who wish to carry guns experience an increase in one type of freedom while those wanting to be free from encountering a gun carrying citizen lose freedom. Though freedom is often a critical issue in debates about public health interventions, metrics for assessing this value generally are inadequate. Rather, consideration of the freedom dimension usually is based on personal judgments that may be informed by opinion surveys.
Both horizontal and vertical equity are important concepts in the policy debate and equally apply to other types of program deliberations. Horizontal equity involves treating people equally or in a universal fashion.6 Federally applied policies typically are horizontally equitable. For example, US requirements that poisonous substances be packaged in childproof containers protects all children equally. In contrast, vertical equity refers to the unequal treatment of unequally situated individuals so as to make them more equal with respect to a particular attribute, such as injury risk. For example, a community smoke detector giveaway program might target low income persons or residences in high fire neighborhoods to help them have the opportunities to protect their homes equal to those of more affluent families.
The criterion of stigmatization, or avoidance of stigmatization, typically refers to the concept that a program or policy should not stigmatize a person or group in the process of serving other purposes. For example, many would consider it undesirably stigmatizing for schoolchildren to have to identify themselves as low income in order to be eligible to receive a free bicycle helmet. In some situations, however, stigmatization may be considered desirable. For example, some argue that public identification of prior sex offenders is an appropriate strategy for reducing future crimes.
Preferences of the affected community or individuals
If a population exposed to an intervention is opposed to the strategy, compliance is likely to be limited. In addition, the perceptions of the community about the suitability of a particular intervention may reflect whether the intervention has appropriately taken into account the sociocultural context in which the injury problem exists and in which the intervention is to be implemented. Not only is this important for the success of a particular intervention, but also for the credibility, over the long term, of the public health or injury control organization or decision making body responsible for the intervention.
Intervention feasibility is important to consider in several ways but not until all other elements are considered. By considering feasibility too early, creativity may be stifled and options excluded that may, in fact, be judged highly desirable by other criteria. Sometimes what might be judged unfeasible at the outset can be made feasible if sufficient other values support efforts to attempt innovations so as to implement the strategy. For example, until sufficient public demand is present, efforts to require safer playgrounds in child care facilities may meet with too much resistance from providers for a feasible solution to emerge. However, with public awareness and demand increased, facility directors may be willing to accept such a policy.
Feasibility has several dimensions, beginning with technological feasibility. That is, can the intervention actually be produced? For example, does the technology exist to produce fire safe cigarettes or airbags suitable for young children? If the answer is “yes” then it is useful to consider political feasibility. This frequently relates to the issue of preferences discussed above. One might consider if the intervention raises significant political issues such that implementation is unlikely or compromised in some way. For example, a proposed ban on the sale of handguns in the US, while potentially effective in reducing certain types of homicide and suicide, would be met with intense political opposition that would limit the feasibility of the intervention being implemented in the near future, but perhaps not in other countries. Another element of feasibility is the extent to which the organization or group responsible for implementing the countermeasure has the technical or financial resources required to carry it out. For example, providing crossing guards at all crosswalks before and after school won’t work in a community that has too few volunteers to perform the task or too little money to hire them.
USING THE THIRD DIMENSION
Using the third dimension involves several steps, as listed in table 3. After steps 1–3 have been completed in forming the outline for the original Haddon matrix (but before completing it) one must determine what values are important to the decision process. As with the other dimensions of the matrix, each element needs to be carefully defined. At step 4, the planning group determines which values to consider in the analysis. For example, they may decide that taxpayer cost, intervention effectiveness, homeowner freedom and non-stigmatization of poor people are the values they want to address in their decision making. Step 5 refers to the process of determining the relative importance of each value so that values can be weighted relative to each other. Step 6 involves completing the matrix by brainstorming or otherwise generating a list of potential intervention options. In completing step 7, the planners would collect and examine data about each value relative to each of the interventions under consideration.
In this example, assume they are considering two intervention options to reduce the high incidence of fatal fires ignited by cigarettes in their locale: (a) using paid fire fighters to install smoke detectors, purchased using public monies, in households where residents verified their low income with tax records or (b) requiring that cigarette manufacturers produce self extinguishing cigarettes. As part of step 8, information from fire safety research would help determine the relative effectiveness of smoke detectors, if installed properly, and efforts to mandate cigarette redesign and/or changes in upholstery flammability standards. If appropriate epidemiologic evidence were available, planners would examine the incidence of fires associated with cigarettes and also the evidence about the relative benefits of having a properly functioning smoke detector when a fire occurs. In addition, planners would examine program evaluation research to gauge the effectiveness of smoke detector installation programs in other locales in increasing the prevalence of properly functioning detectors in homes. They would also examine evidence that changes in cigarettes would reduce fire incidence. Likewise, they would want to estimate the costs associated with purchasing detectors and the personnel time required to install them, as well as the costs of developing and enforcing the cigarette safety standards. These costs would be balanced against costs associated with not doing each intervention. Similarly, each intervention would be examined with respect to stigmatization and freedom.
The extent to which the options considered span different jurisdictions (for example local v federal policy) makes comparisons more complex, but not impossible. This process requires that the planners assemble relevant evidence from varied sources: for example, epidemiologic studies, intervention studies, information from cigarettes or upholstery manufacturing companies, assessment of program costs, and opinions expressed in interviews with residents about issues of stigmatization and freedom. In many cases, there will not be published data available. In those situations, the planners will need either to extrapolate from other information or to make an educated guess. It should be remembered that the point of the process is to guide decision making and that it isn’t always possible to conduct a rigorous scientific analysis in the timeframe required for program development. Often, however, sufficient information will be available from prior scientific studies so that decisions can be based on sound evidence. The more rigorous the sources of data used, the more detailed the analyses can be, and the more confident planners can be that their decisions will result in the desired outcome.
Both new and existing intervention strategies can be compared using the same method. However, the more the analysis involves previously untried strategies, the more difficult it will be to incorporate certain types of evidence in the deliberation. Although it is important to recognize this factor, it should not be allowed to limit creativity.
Once all the information has been gathered to assess each criterion for each of the interventions under consideration, the comparative analysis begins (step 9). Policy analysts or planners employ numerous ways, with varying degrees of complexity, to accomplish this task.8 They may use a quantitative process involving summing scores for the relative importance of each criterion multiplied by a score representing the extent to which each option possesses the attributes of the criterion. For new interventions this will require some forecasting of the potential attributes of the intervention, once implemented. For interventions that have been tried already, various types of information may be available to quantify the effects, costs, and other attributes.
Qualitative information also can be examined. This might include reviewing testimony about preferences expressed in reference to prior efforts to enact a policy, news clippings giving indications of public sentiment about a proposed program, or reviews of process evaluations of programs or policies implemented in the past to assess potential barriers that could influence effectiveness.
Whether using quantitative or qualitative information, the process needs to be systematic, allowing planners to carefully assess the options. Decision making (step 10) can then be justified and explained in the context of pre-established criteria applied in a rational manner.
It is wise to document the process and record how assessments were made not only so that decisions can be more easily explained to others (step 11) but also so that interventions can be re-evaluated after some period of time using new data that may reflect changes in technology, epidemiology, or the political environment (step 12).
Haddon’s matrix has been an extremely valuable tool over nearly two decades. As a conceptual model, it has helped guide research and the development of interventions. The addition of the third dimension (fig 1) should facilitate its application in decision making. As the three dimensional formulation is applied, users should document successes and problems in using the revised model. Over time, the application of the model in different settings should be shared in the professional literature so that the model can be made even more useful and user friendly.
I am grateful for the assistance of students in my injury class over the past 10 years who have helped me clarify and improve this material. I also appreciate the assistance of Lisa Cohen in formulating the school violence example and the help of Ronda Zakocs and two anonymous reviewers in suggesting improvements to the manuscript. This work was partially supported by a grant from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control to the University of North Carolina Injury Prevention Research Center (CCR402444).
↵ Haddon W. On the escape of tigers: an ecologic note. Am J Public Health 1970;60:2229–34. [Medline]
↵ Haddon W. Options for the prevention of motor vehicle crash injury. Israeli Medical Journal 1980;16:45–65.
↵ Susser M. Causal thinking in the health sciences—concepts and strategies of epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.
↵ Kleinbaum D, Kupper L, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research—principles and quantitative methods. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications, 1982.
↵ Runyan C, Fischer P, Moore J, et al. Attempting to change local policy. Family and Community Health 1992;15:66–74.
↵ MacRae D, Wilde J. Policy analysis for public decisions. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press, 1979.
Haskins R, Gallagher J. Models for social policy analysis: an introduction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press, 1981.
↵ Patton CV, Sawicki DS. Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
↵ Margolis L, Runyan CW. Accidental policy: an analysis of the problem of unintended injuries. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1983;53:629–44. [Medline][Web of Science]
↵ Wakeland HH. An array of social values for use in analyzing the need for safety regulation. Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Automotive Safety. July 14–16, 1975. (Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US Department of Transportation, 1975, 875–906, as cited in Waller J. Injury control: a guide to the causes and prevention of trauma. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985: 59–64).
Who is talking about this article?
Article has an altmetric score of 6
See more details
Tweeted by 4
Referenced in 1 Wikipedia pages
114 readers on Mendeley
1 readers on CiteULike
Using the Haddon matrix: introducing the third dimension.
Carol W Runyan, Inj Prev, 2015
Using the Haddon matrix: introducing the third dimension
Carol W Runyan, Injury Prevention, 1998
Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in road traffic injuries: time for a policy agenda.
A Plasència et al., J Epidemiol Community Health, 2001
Injury prevention: a glossary of terms.
I Barry Pless et al., J Epidemiol Community Health, 2005
Research and practice in a multidimensional world: a commentary on the contribution of the third dimension of the Haddon matrix to injury prevention
Bridie Scott-Parker et al., Injury Prevention, 2015
What Older People Want From Long-Term Care, and How They Can Get It
Robert L. Kane and Rosalie A. Kane , Medscape, 2001
Contemporary Health Care Economics: An Overview
Nancy McLaughlin, M.D., Ph.D., F.R.C.S.C., et al., Medscape, 2014
American Health Care and the Law – We Need to Talk!
Clark C. Havighurst , Medscape, 2000
Weight Stigma: Health Implications
Rebecca M. Puhl, PhD, Medscape, 2011
Access to Quality Health Care: Links Between Evidence, Nursing Language, and Informatics
Beth Ann Swan, et al., Medscape, 2004
Powered by TrendMD
Add to CiteULikeCiteULike Add to DeliciousDelicious Add to DiggDigg Add to FacebookFacebook Google+ Add to MendeleyMendeley Add to RedditReddit Add to TwitterTwitter
Articles citing this article
Public Health Models for Preventing Child Maltreatment: Applications From the Field of Injury Prevention
Trauma Violence Abuse 2016;17:4 408-419
‘If parents are punished for asking their children to feed goats: Supervisory neglect in sub-Saharan Africa
Journal of Social Work 2016;16:3 303-321
Research and practice in a multidimensional world: a commentary on the contribution of the third dimension of the Haddon matrix to injury prevention
Inj. Prev. 2015;21:2 131-132
The public policy approach to injury prevention
Inj. Prev. 2011;17:1 63-65
Disability, environmental factors and non-fatal injury
Inj. Prev. 2010;16:6 411-415
Tackling in Rugby: Coaching Strategies for Effective Technique and Injury Prevention
International journal of Sports Science & Coaching 2010;5:1 117-135
Injury prevention in paediatric sport-related injuries: a scientific approach
Br. J. Sports. Med. 2010;44:1 64-69
Falls, poisonings, burns, and road traffic injuries in urban Peruvian children and adolescents: a community based study
Inj. Prev. 2009;15:6 390-396
Mortality due to injuries by place of occurrence in the European region: analysis of data quality in the WHO mortality database
Inj. Prev. 2009;15:4 275-277
Fall prevention in older adults: towards an integrated population-based perspective
Inj. Prev. 2008;14:3 147-148
Developing a Methodology for Assessing Safety Programs Targeting Human Error in Aviation
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 2007;51:2 90-92
Disaster Preparedness: Occupational and Environmental Health Professionals’ Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Workplace Health Saf 2007;55:5 197-207
Identification of strategies to prevent death after pesticide self-poisoning using a Haddon matrix.
Inj. Prev. 2006;12:5 333-337
Unalterable host factors? A social epidemiologist’s view of the Haddon matrix.
Inj. Prev. 2006;12:5 285-286
Translational Research in Child and Adolescent Transportation Safety
Eval Health Prof 2006;29:1 33-64
Injury prevention: a glossary of terms
- Epidemiol. Community Health 2005;59:3 182-185
Tips for Creating a Safety Culture in Organizations
Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications 2004;12:4 25-30
Guidelines for Developing a Safety Culture to Support the Implementation and Use of Technology
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 2003;47:14 1777-1781
Application of Behavior-Change Theories and Methods to Injury Prevention
Epidemiol Rev 2003;25:1 65-76
Introduction: Back to the Future–Revisiting Haddon’s Conceptualization of Injury Epidemiology and Prevention
Epidemiol Rev 2003;25:1 60-64
Role of individual and contextual effects in injury mortality: new evidence from small area analysis
Inj. Prev. 2002;8:4 297-302
Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in road traffic injuries: time for a policy agenda
- Epidemiol. Community Health 2001;55:12 853-854
A population based study of unintentional firearm fatalities
Inj. Prev. 2001;7:1 62-65
From theory to practice
Inj. Prev. 1999;5:2 158