Public research record
Supporting families and building relationships: Evaluation of a home and sleep safety equipment scheme for impoverished communities.
Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026
- DOI 10.1016/j.puhip.2026.100733
- PMID 41623404
- PMCID PMC12857416
Study snapshot
What this research can tell you
- What is this?
- An indexed scholarly work. The study design is not available in this public record.
- Who did it?
- Bates J, Kokogho OC, Dunstan-Smith KE, et al.
- What did they study?
- Population details are not available in this public record.
- How should I read it?
- FamilyPhD does not assign a strength rating without enough structured study detail.
What was found
The structured finding summary is not available. The study abstract is shown below.
Limitations
Structured limitations are not available in this public record. Absence here does not mean the study has no limitations.
Where FamilyPhD has used it
FamilyPhD may cite this work when it supports a specific answer. A public history of individual answer use is not currently available, so no contribution relationship is implied on this page.
From the publication record
Study abstract
The abstract is publication text, not a FamilyPhD recommendation.
Objectives
Sleep safety and home safety resources allow families to care for babies and young children, preventing injuries and child death, adverse outcomes that are strongly linked to poverty and social deprivation. Parenthood involves unexpected costs and greater levels of unmet need for safety resources occur in low-income families. We evaluate a local authority scheme which enabled professionals in County Durham to apply for necessary safety equipment on behalf of eligible families. Study design A holistic review of the first year of the operation of the Start For Life Fund (SFLF) scheme.
Methods
A mixed method approach was used comprising: 1) a descriptive analysis of the application data submitted by professionals; 2) an online survey to capture the views and experiences of staff who had and had not used the scheme; 3) semi structured interviews with staff applicants and recipient families.
Results
679 families (988 children) were supported during the first operational year, average cost £407 per family (£280/child). Three-quarters of children (72.3 %) were under three; over a third (35.7 %) were pre-birth to 1-year. Staff from seven services and over 20 job roles made applications for families with financial, relationship, housing, domestic violence, and disability-related needs, most from areas with high deprivation scores. 256 staff across 8 service areas submitted survey responses, 39 % of whom had used the scheme which was viewed extremely positively. Interviews with 13 staff and 7 families evidenced how children, families and practitioners benefitted. Recipients reported reduced stress and anxiety about child safety and increased parental confidence.
Conclusions
By providing families with the sleep and home safety equipment they can't afford the SFLF gives parents the opportunity to change behaviours and reduce the risk to babies and children from unintentional injury and death. It helps to improve working relationships between practitioners and families, reduces parental experiences of anxiety, and risk to staff of moral injury. Taking steps to reduce unexpected infant death and child unintentional injury is crucial for families in absolute and relative poverty. Other local authorities could emulate this scheme.
