Rural versus urban pediatric non-accidental trauma: different patients, similar outcomes

Abstract

Abstract Objective Our aim was to compare urban and rural non-accidental trauma for trends and characterize where injury prevention efforts can be focused. Pediatric trauma patients (age 0–14 years) at two level I adult and pediatric trauma centers, one rural and one urban, were included and data from the trauma registries at each center was abstracted. Results Of 857 pediatric admissions, 10% of injuries were considered non-accidental. The mean age for all non-accidental trauma patients was significantly lower than the overall pediatric trauma population (2.6 vs. 7.7 years, P < 0.001). Significantly more fatalities occurred in the non-accidental trauma cohort (5.7% vs. 1% P = 0.007). In nearly half of all non-accidental trauma patients, the primary insurance was government programs (49%) and 46% were commercial insurance. The proportion of government insurance in non-accidental trauma was higher in both urban and rural cohorts. There were similar rates of urban and rural patients sustaining non-accidental trauma who were uninsured (6.5 vs. 5.3%). Patients that were younger, in a rural location, and receiving government insurance were at higher risk of non-accidental trauma on univariable analysis. However, only age remained an independent predictor on multivariable analysis.

Keywords

• Non-accidental trauma
• Intentional trauma
• Pediatric trauma
• Pediatric injury
• Urban injury
• Rural injury