A reflection on 10 World Safety Conferences
Leif SvanströmKarolinska Institutet
Dept Public Health SciencesStockholm, Sweden
Injury Prevention Research in Sweden started 1953
-Berfenstam/Ehrenpreis
Since then an undertaking of Academic Social Medicine
Uppsala, Lund- later Umeå, Linköping, Gothenburg and Karlstad
Leif SvanströmKarolinska Institutet
Dept Public Health SciencesStockholm, Sweden
Since the 60´s there was a need to connect to other researchers around the World and finally the idea on a conference series was established.
Leif SvanströmKarolinska Institutet
Dept Public Health SciencesStockholm, Sweden
There was an attempt from Australian collegues to organize a world- wide
Conference by the end of 1980´s- but failed. We at Karolinska Inst took over
the idea and September 17 1989 almost 500 participants from around 50
countries met in Stockholm.
Leif SvanströmKarolinska Institutet
Dept Public Health SciencesStockholm, Sweden
The first world conference on accident and injury prevention.
Stockholm, 17-20 September 1989.
Leif SvanströmKarolinska Institutet
Dept Public Health SciencesStockholm, Sweden
The first world conference on accident and injury prevention.
Stockholm, 17-20 September 1989.
Leif SvanströmKarolinska Institutet
Dept Public Health SciencesStockholm, Sweden
The first world conference on accident and injury prevention.
Stockholm, 17-20 September 1989.
Themes of the Stockholm Conference
Recommendations:
1. Formulate Public Policy for Safety2. Create Supportive Environments for
Safety3. Strengthen Community Action
4. Broaden Public Services
Statement of the Stockholm Conference 1989
10 International Conferences during two decades
1. Stockholm, Sweden 19892. Atlanta, USA 1993
3. Melbourne, Australia 19964. Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1998
5. New Delhi, India 20006. Montreal, Canada 20027. Vienna, Austria 2004 8. Durban S Africa 20069. Merida, Mexico 200810. London, UK 2010
10 International Conferences- some lessons(1)
1. Possible to arrange a series of conferences- 20 years is a short time
2. Crucial with input from the WHO and some few scientific centres
3. Raised national interest, activities and pride4. Attracted some professionals but not all (as
we hoped for)- very few occupational, transport, violence etc. Great variation of
research quality. 5. Difficult to attract geographically from
conference to conference
10 International Conferences- some lessons (2)
6. Policy-wise more reflecting WHO change in ideology than reflecting researchers initiatives7. From intents to develop gutter strategies to traditional downpipes(intra-sectoral activities)
(intersectoral approaches difficult)8. Great difficulties establishing NGO of researchers
and activists so far9. Pre- and post conferences (satellites) more of a
problem than a possibility?10. Practitioners- how will they be reached with the
results?
10 International Conferences- some personal final conclusions (1)
1. Researchers are normally no good policy-makers Policy-makers are normally no good researchers-
two conferences in one?2. S C evidence-based injury prevention should take its starting point in the health promotion sciences
rather than in Medical Sciences 3. The audience we are working with are more
technocrats than democrats4. Probably the reason we find so very few national Injury Prevention/ Safety Promotion programmes
5. Money counts- those who needs the science/knowledge are not there
10 International Conferences- some personal final conclusions (2)
6. Stop fighting between the very few journals we have in the family- get others on board!
7. Participation should be a reflection of available research! Rich countries with many centres should share!
8. WHO-ideology and priorities dominate the plenaries and is hardly present in the smaller sessions
9. Innovations from smaller presentations/session hardly reach the plenaries
10. Many of You are hard-working idealists and policy-makers- thanks for being with us to form a safer future; 20
years was fun and I will miss You!