Evaluation of movement of Safe Communities’ Development in the World Key note speech at plenary session 2 The Second Asia Pacific Conference on Injury Prevention Ha Noi, Vietnam Nov 5, 2008 Leif Svanström, Chair WHO CC Community Safety Promotion

Now! Think: Evaluation of interventions Research based-Evidence based Actions must be ”evidence- based”? Look: at intervention levels

Injury Prevention/ Sector Safety Promotion Level International National Community Organisation Group Individual WHO: ”Injury, violence prevention and rehabilitation programs” Does Dr Krug, Dr Peden, Dr Butchart etc need a ”rigorous research” base for their policy work at international level? Evidence- based policy?

Injury Prevention/ Sector Safety Promotion Level International National Community Organisation Group Individual Viet Nam’s Injury Prevention Strategy and Action Plan Does Dr Tu need a ”rigorous research” base for the policy work at National level? Evidence- based policy? Let us look at some items in the plan!

1. Priorities of the national policy in Vietnam Traffic injuries Occupational Injuries Childhood injuries Other Injuries in community 2. Role of health sector Standing agency of National Steering Committee Advocacy and raise awareness for community on injury prevention; Injury surveillance system Safe community development Prehospital care and trauma care in health facilities Are we not allowed to develop those health sector roles without ”evidence-base” ?

Safe Communities A WHO Concept and a worldwide policy movement

Safe Communities A WHO Concept and a worldwide policy movement the first ”comprehensive” local community accident prevention program (Falköping in Sweden) starts The worldwide ”movement” starts slowly 1980’s- WHO developed their Safe Community Concept The first joint contacts between WHO and the movement WHO establishes The Safe Community Program in Stockholm by Deputy Director Abdelmoumene; the Collaborating Centre on Community Safety Promotion is inaugurated and the Stockholm Manifesto on Safe Communities adopted.

Chair Leif Svanström Co-ordinator Moa Sundström

Safety Promotion Sector Level International National Community Organisation Group Individual Community Safety Promotion “Safe Community”

What is a Safe Community? A “Safe Community” can be a Municipality, a County, or a City working with safety promotion, injury-, violence-, suicide and natural disaster prevention, covering all age groups, gender and areas and is a part of an international network of accredited programs. The community makes application to a Certifying Centre and if accepted, an agreement is signed between the WHO Collaborating Centre on Community Safety Promotion and the community.

The Role of the WHO Collaborating Centre To coordinate world-wide and regional networks of Safe Communities, Affiliate Safe Community Support Centres and Safe Communities’ Certifying Centres. To develop indicators for Safe Communities and sector-wise Safety Promotion. To organize training courses, conferences and seminars in Community Safety Promotion.

Safe Community concept and networks introduced on location Spreading the Safe Communities concept

Hong Kong 1.Kwai Tsing 2.Sham Shui Po 3.Tai Po 4.Tsuen Wan 5.Tuen Mun 6.Tung Chung Canada 1.Brampton 2.Brockville 3.Calgary 4.Rainy River Valley 5.Sault Ste. Marie 6.Wood Buffalo Vietnam 1.Da Trach 2.Dong Tien 3.Lang Co 4.Loc Sonh 5.Xuan Dinh 6. Duc Chinh Australia 1.Denmark 2.Hume City 3.Latrobe 4.Mackay/Whitsunday 5.Melbourne 6.Noarlunga 7.Northcott 8.Palmerston 9.Ryde 10.SHOROC 11.Townsville Austria State of Vorarlberg Bosnia and Herzegovina Konjic Chile Peñaflor Israel Raanana China (Province of Taiwan) 1.Alishan 2.Dungshr 3.Fongbin 4.Neihu Czech Republic Kromeriz Denmark Horsens Estonia Rapla Finland 1.Hyvinkää 2.Kouvola Iran 1.Arsanjan 2.Bardaskan 3.Kashmar Japan Kameoka Korea 1.Jeju 2.Songpa 3.Suwon South Africa 1.Eldorado Park 2.Nomzamo–Broadlands Park New Zealand 1.Christchurch 2.New Plymouth 3.North Shore 4.Porirua 5.Tauranga 6.Waimakariri 7.Waitakere 8.Wellington 9.Whangarei USA 1.Dallas 2.Anchorage 3.Omaha 4.Springfield Peru San Borja (Lima) Sp. Poland Tarnowskie Góry The Netherlands Rotterdam Sweden 1.Arjeplog 2.Borås 3.Falköping 4.Falun 5.Katrineholm 6.Krokom 7.Lidköping 8.Ludvika 9.Mariestad 10.Motala 11.Nacka 12.Skövde 13.Smedjebacken 14.Staffanstorp 15.Tidaholm 16.Töreboda 17.Uddevalla Republic of Serbia Backi Petrovac Norway 1.Alvdal 2.Årdal 3.Bergen 4.Fredrikstad 5.Harstad 6.Høyanger 7.Klepp 8.Kvam 9.Larvik 10.Os 11.Rakkestad 12.Ski 13.Sogn and Fjordane 14.Spydeberg 15.Stovner 16.Trondheim 17.Vågå China 1.Hong'qiao 2.Huamu 3.Jianwai Community 4.Jing Ge Zhuang, Kailuan 5.Jing’an 6.Kangjian 7.Lu´an Community 8.Maizidian 9.Qianjiaying, Kailuan 10.Wangjing 11.Xicheng District, Beijing 12.Yayuncun 13.Youth Park Community 14.Yuetan, Beijing Updated to 2nd Nov 2008 Countries with designated Safe Communities In total: 120/145 in 26 countries 5 and more 1-4

Safe Community concept and networks introduced on location Spreading the Safe Communities concept

Hong Kong 1.Kwai Tsing 2.Sham Shui Po 3.Tai Po 4.Tsuen Wan 5.Tuen Mun 6.Tung Chung Canada 1.Brampton 2.Brockville 3.Calgary 4.Rainy River Valley 5.Sault Ste. Marie 6.Wood Buffalo Vietnam 1.Da Trach 2.Dong Tien 3.Lang Co 4.Loc Sonh 5.Xuan Dinh 6. Duc Chinh Australia 1.Denmark 2.Hume City 3.Latrobe 4.Mackay/Whitsunday 5.Melbourne 6.Noarlunga 7.Northcott 8.Palmerston 9.Ryde 10.SHOROC 11.Townsville Austria State of Vorarlberg Bosnia and Herzegovina Konjic Chile Peñaflor Israel Raanana China (Province of Taiwan) 1.Alishan 2.Dungshr 3.Fongbin 4.Neihu Czech Republic Kromeriz Denmark Horsens Estonia Rapla Finland 1.Hyvinkää 2.Kouvola Iran 1.Arsanjan 2.Bardaskan 3.Kashmar Japan Kameoka Korea 1.Jeju 2.Songpa 3.Suwon South Africa 1.Eldorado Park 2.Nomzamo–Broadlands Park New Zealand 1.Christchurch 2.New Plymouth 3.North Shore 4.Porirua 5.Tauranga 6.Waimakariri 7.Waitakere 8.Wellington 9.Whangarei USA 1.Dallas 2.Anchorage 3.Omaha 4.Springfield Peru San Borja (Lima) Sp. Poland Tarnowskie Góry The Netherlands Rotterdam Sweden 1.Arjeplog 2.Borås 3.Falköping 4.Falun 5.Katrineholm 6.Krokom 7.Lidköping 8.Ludvika 9.Mariestad 10.Motala 11.Nacka 12.Skövde 13.Smedjebacken 14.Staffanstorp 15.Tidaholm 16.Töreboda 17.Uddevalla Republic of Serbia Backi Petrovac Norway 1.Alvdal 2.Årdal 3.Bergen 4.Fredrikstad 5.Harstad 6.Høyanger 7.Klepp 8.Kvam 9.Larvik 10.Os 11.Rakkestad 12.Ski 13.Sogn and Fjordane 14.Spydeberg 15.Stovner 16.Trondheim 17.Vågå China 1.Hong'qiao 2.Huamu 3.Jianwai Community 4.Jing Ge Zhuang, Kailuan 5.Jing’an 6.Kangjian 7.Lu´an Community 8.Maizidian 9.Qianjiaying, Kailuan 10.Wangjing 11.Xicheng District, Beijing 12.Yayuncun 13.Youth Park Community 14.Yuetan, Beijing Updated to 2nd Nov 2008 Countries with designated Safe Communities In total: 120/145 in 26 countries 5 and more 1-4

Designated Safe Communities by region Updated to 2nd Nov Sum 120 ｛ 145 ｝

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations The Cochrane Library Evidence for Health Care Decisionmaking Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD DOI: / CD pub2. Main results Only seven WHO Safe Communities, of more than 80 worldwide, have undertaken controlled evaluations using objective sources of injury data. These communities represent only four countries from two geographical regions in the world: the Scandinavian countries of Sweden and Norway and the Pacific nations of Australia and New Zealand. Safe Communities in Sweden and Norway have resulted in significant reductions in injury rates. The Australian and New Zealand communities have been unable to replicate the same level of success.

The 'WHO Safe Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations The Cochrane Library Evidence for Health Care Decisionmaking Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD DOI: / CD pub2. Authors' conclusions “Evidence suggests the WHO Safe Communities model is effective in reducing injuries in whole populations. However, important methodological limitations exist in all studies from which evidence can be obtained.” “The four countries that have evaluated their Safe Communities with a sufficiently rigorous study design have higher economic wealth and health standards and lower injury rates than much of the world. No evaluations were available from other parts of the world, despite the designation of WHO Safe Communities in countries such as South Africa, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, Canada, UK and USA.”

Regional Safe Communities’ networks Updated to 2nd Nov Asia Safe Community Network – est TANG Wah Shing, Chair Executive Director of Occupational Safety and Health Council, Hong Kong SAR, China Pacific Safe Community Network - ?? North America Safe Community Network - ?? European Safe Community Network est. 2009

Sweden Swedish Association for Safe Communities (SCCC) Czech Rebublic Centre for Injury Prevention (ASCSC) South Africa University of South Africa, Institute for Social and Health Sciences (ASCSC) Centre for Peace Action (SCCC) Canada Safe Communities Foundation (ASCSC) (SCCC) USA National Safety Council (ASCSC) Peaceful Resources Center (ASCSC) Injury Prevention Research Center (ASCSC) Colombia Instituto CISALVA (SCCC) China, Hong Kong Occupational Safety and Health Council (ASCSC) Korea Center for Injury Prevention and Community Safety Promotion (ASCSC) (SCCC) Bangladesh Centre for Injury Prevention and Research(ASCSC) Australia Royal Children´s Hospital Safety Centre (ASCSC) Austrailian Safe Communities Foundation (SCCC) New Zealand Safe Communities Foundation (ASCSC) (SCCC) The Affiliate Safe Community Support Centres (ASCSC) and the Safe Community Certifying Centres (SCCC) These Affiliate Centres are supporting the WHO CC in the development of the Safe Communities Program and providing advice and assistance in the field of injury prevention and safety promotion to the communities in their country and internationally. The Certifying Centres also take care of the certifying function of the WHO CC.

Indicators for International Safe Communities Safe Communities have: 1. An infrastructure based on partnership and collaborations, governed by a cross- sectional group that is responsible for safety promotion in their community; 2.Long-term, sustainable programs covering both genders, all ages, environments, and situations; 3.Programs that target high-risk groups and environments, and programs that promote safety for vulnerable groups; 4.Programs that document the frequency and causes of injuries; 5.Evaluation measures to assess their programs, processes and the effects of change; 6.Ongoing participation in national and international Safe Communities networks. Stockholm May 2002 WHO Collaborating Centre on Community Safety Promotion

Countries with designations under preparation Safe Community concept and networks introduced on location (countries) Spreading the Safe Communities concept

Indicators for International Safe Communities Safe Communities have: 1. An infrastructure based on partnership and collaborations, governed by a cross- sectional group that is responsible for safety promotion in their community; 2.Long-term, sustainable programs covering both genders, all ages, environments, and situations; 3.Programs that target high-risk groups and environments, and programs that promote safety for vulnerable groups; 4.Programs that document the frequency and causes of injuries; 5.Evaluation measures to assess their programs, processes and the effects of change; 6.Ongoing participation in national and international Safe Communities networks. Stockholm May 2002 WHO Collaborating Centre on Community Safety Promotion Think: evaluation; evidence-base! Duc Chinh Safe Community Designation

Indicators for International Safe Communities Safe Communities have: 1. An infrastructure based on partnership and collaborations, governed by a cross- sectional group that is responsible for safety promotion in their community; 2.Long-term, sustainable programs covering both genders, all ages, environments, and situations; 3.Programs that target high-risk groups and environments, and programs that promote safety for vulnerable groups; 4.Programs that document the frequency and causes of injuries; 5.Evaluation measures to assess their programs, processes and the effects of change; 6.Ongoing participation in national and international Safe Communities networks. Stockholm May 2002 WHO Collaborating Centre on Community Safety Promotion