Discussion Board questions – HVA / THIRA
Read the article on the Haddon matrix application (Haddon Matrix Article.pdf ) to public health emergencies in emergency management. The Haddon matrix was designed in the 1960s as a model to understand injury prevention and control. It examines agent, host and environment in three phases, pre-event, event and post-event.
Choose any disaster incident type listed in the Comprehensive Planning Guide (CPG201 v 2) or the THIRA document and use your skills with data management software
programs (Microsoft Excel) to create a matrix that examines the interaction of influencing factors and phase. Don’t forget to include factors that would ‘protect’ or ‘strengthen’ the host to resist damage/injury. This activity is consistent with the first step of the THIRA
process!
You may not use any of the examples given in the assigned article. Pay specific
attention to attributes of the host found in the assigned reading in Perry and Lindell
which may contribute to why emergency planning is difficult or made more difficult. You
may choose to write about disaster incidents in other countries but make sure to provide
detail about what particular characteristics or societal values are different or unique
based on your choice. If you choose to use such an incident, be certain to cite, using
APA format, the reports you used to understand that event.
And again, while it is very valuable to look at published matrices, you must create one of your own for the event you select.
I do not expect you to provide the depth and breadth of answer found on page 563
(public health Haddon matrix) but I do expect more information than what is presented
in the original matrix example which is found on page 562.
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.
Haddon’s matrix
The matrix of four columns and three rows combines public health concepts of host-agentenvironment 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
Table 1
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
Table 2
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
Table 3
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).
Figure 1
View larger version: In a new window Download as PowerPoint Slide
Figure 1
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.
Effectiveness
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
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.
Freedom
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.
Equity
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.
Stigmatization
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.
Feasibility
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).
Conclusion
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.
Acknowledgments
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).
References
? 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
We recommend
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
What’s this?
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
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
‘If parents are punished for asking their children to feed goats: Supervisory neglect in subSaharan Africa
Journal of Social Work 2016;16:3 303-321
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
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
[Full text][PDF]
The public policy approach to injury prevention
Inj. Prev. 2011;17:1 63-65
[Full text][PDF]
Disability, environmental factors and non-fatal injury
Inj. Prev. 2010;16:6 411-415
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
Tackling in Rugby: Coaching Strategies for Effective Technique and Injury Prevention
International journal of Sports Science & Coaching 2010;5:1 117-135
[Abstract][PDF]
Injury prevention in paediatric sport-related injuries: a scientific approach
Br. J. Sports. Med. 2010;44:1 64-69
[Full text][PDF]
Falls, poisonings, burns, and road traffic injuries in urban Peruvian children and adolescents: a
community based study
Inj. Prev. 2009;15:6 390-396
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
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
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
Fall prevention in older adults: towards an integrated population-based perspective
Inj. Prev. 2008;14:3 147-148
[Full text][PDF]
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
[Abstract][PDF]
Disaster Preparedness: Occupational and Environmental Health Professionals’ Response to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Workplace Health Saf 2007;55:5 197-207
[PDF]
Identification of strategies to prevent death after pesticide self-poisoning using a Haddon
matrix.
Inj. Prev. 2006;12:5 333-337
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
Unalterable host factors? A social epidemiologist’s view of the Haddon matrix.
Inj. Prev. 2006;12:5 285-286
[Full text][PDF]
Translational Research in Child and Adolescent Transportation Safety
Eval Health Prof 2006;29:1 33-64
[Abstract][PDF]
Injury prevention: a glossary of terms
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2005;59:3 182-185
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
Tips for Creating a Safety Culture in Organizations
Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications 2004;12:4 25-30
[Abstract][PDF]
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 17771781
[Abstract][PDF]
Application of Behavior-Change Theories and Methods to Injury Prevention
Epidemiol Rev 2003;25:1 65-76
[Full text][PDF]
Introduction: Back to the Future–Revisiting Haddon’s Conceptualization of Injury Epidemiology
and Prevention
Epidemiol Rev 2003;25:1 60-64
[Full text][PDF]
Role of individual and contextual effects in injury mortality: new evidence from small area
analysis
Inj. Prev. 2002;8:4 297-302
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in road traffic injuries: time for a policy agenda
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2001;55:12 853-854
[Full text][PDF]
A population based study of unintentional firearm fatalities
Inj. Prev. 2001;7:1 62-65
[Abstract][Full text][PDF]
From theory to practice
Inj. Prev. 1999;5:2 158
[Full text][PDF]
Active Shooter Incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School – December 14, 2012
Phase
Influencing Factors
Host
Agent/Vector
Physical Environment
Adam Lanza presented with developmental issues Malicious intent and aypical peroccupation with violence.
Adam spent most of his time isolated in his
before the age of three. Later diagnosed with OCD
basement doing solitary activites
Asperger syndrome and anorexia.
Severe and deteriorating intern