Age-appropriate Restraint Use Research Articles

Updated population-level estimates of child restraint practices among children aged 0–12 years in Australia, 10 years after introduction of age-appropriate restraint use legislation

ObjectiveOptimal child passenger protection requires use of a restraint designed for the age/size of the child (appropriate use) that is used in the way the manufacturer intended (correct use).This study...

Adequacy of Emergency Department Documentation of Child Restraint Use After a Motor Vehicle Crash.

There are limited data on how often providers collect and document adequate restraint information in children seen in the emergency department (ED) after motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). The objectives of this study are to determine (1) how often adequate child restraint information to determine age-appropriate use is documented after MVC; (2) the frequency of incorrect use of the child restraint when adequate details are documented; and (3) for those discharged from the ED with identified incorrect use, the frequency of provision of information on child passenger safety (CPS). Retrospective chart review of visits of children younger than 13 years with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code for MVC to an urban, academic, level 1 pediatric trauma center, from October 2015 to September 2018. Adequate documentation of child restraint use was defined as identification of location of the child in the car (front vs rear row), type of restraint used, and forward or rear facing for children 24 months or younger. A total of 165 visits qualified for inclusion. There was adequate documentation in 46% of visits. Of those, incorrect child restraint use was identified in 49%. Of discharged patients with incorrect use, 10% had documentation of provision of CPS information. Adequate details to determine proper age-appropriate restraint use are documented in only half of ED visits for MVC. Very few are given CPS instructions on discharge, even when incorrect use has been identified. Identification of incorrect restraint use in the ED is an opportunity for a teachable moment that is being underused.

Use of child safety seats and booster seats in the United States: A comparison of parent/caregiver-reported and observed use estimates

Background: Motor-vehicles crashes are a leading cause of death among children. Age- and size-appropriate restraint use can prevent crash injuries and deaths among children. Strategies to increase child restraint use should be informed by reliable estimates of restraint use practices. Objective: Compare parent/caregiver-reported and observed child restraint use estimates from the FallStyles and Estilos surveys with the National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS). Methods: Estimates of child restraint use from two online, cross-sectional surveys—FallStyles, a survey of U.S. adults, and Estilos, a survey of U.S. Hispanic adults—were compared with observed data collected in NSUBS. Parents/caregivers of children aged ≤ 12 years were asked about the child’s restraint use behaviors in FallStyles and Estilos, while restraint use was observed in NSUBS. Age-appropriate restraint use was defined as rear-facing child safety seat (CSS) use for children aged 0–4 years, forward-facing CSS use for children aged 2–7 years, booster seat use for children aged 5–12 years, and seat belt use for children aged 9–12 years. Age-appropriate restraint users are described by demographic characteristics and seat row, with weighted prevalence and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Results: Overall, child restraint use as reported by parents/caregivers was 90.8% (CI: 87.5–94.1) (FallStyles) and 89.4% (CI: 85.5–93.4) for observed use (NSUBS). Among Hispanic children, reported restraint use was 82.6% (CI: 73.9–91.3) (Estilos) and 84.4% (CI: 79.0–88.6) for observed use (NSUBS, Hispanic children only). For age-appropriate restraint use, estimates ranged from 74.3% (CI: 69.7–79.0) (FallStyles) to 59.7% (CI: 55.0–64.4) (NSUBS), and for Hispanic children, from 71.5% (CI: 62.1–81.0) (Estilos) to 57.2% (CI: 51.2–63.2) (NSUBS, Hispanic children only). Conclusion and Practical Application: Overall estimates of parent/caregiver-reported and observed child restraint use were similar. However, for age-appropriate restraint use, reported use was higher than observed use for most age groups.

Seating position and patterns of severely injured body parts among child passengers in motor vehicle crashes: Japan as a distinct case

ABSTRACTThis study describes injury patterns and outcomes related to the seating position of child passengers involved in motor vehicle crashes in Japan. Using data obtained from a national trauma registry database, we compared the occurrence of injuries by body parts, length of hospital stay and in-hospital deaths between front-seating and rear-seating among children. We analysed 166 children aged 0–5 years and 205 children aged 6–12 years. No significant differences were observed between front- and rear-seating for injured body parts, length of hospital stay or in-hospital deaths in the 0–5-year-old victims. Among those aged 6–12 years, rear-seating was associated with a higher incidence of head and chest injuries but the length of stay or in-hospital deaths did not differ. These findings contrast those of previous studies, which found that rear-seating reduces injury risk, possibly attributed to low age-appropriate restraint use among school-aged children in Japan.

Program fidelity measures associated with an effective child restraint program: Buckle-Up Safely.

We sought to identify the program fidelity factors associated with successful implementation of the Buckle-Up Safely program, targeting correct use of age-appropriate child car restraints. In 2010, we conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of 830 families with children attending preschools and long day care centers in South West Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Families received the Buckle-Up Safely program in the intervention arm of the study (13 services). Independent observers assessed the type of restraint and whether it was used correctly. This detailed process evaluation showed that the multifaceted program was implemented with high fidelity. Program protocols were adhered to and messaging was consistently delivered. Results from multilevel and logistic regression analyses show that age-appropriate restraint use was associated with attendance at a parent information session hosted at the center (adjusted odd ratio [AOR]=3.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.61, 8.29) and adversely affected by the child being aged 2 to 3 years (AOR=0.14; 95% CI=0.07, 0.30) or being from a family with more than 2 children (AOR=0.34; 95% CI=0.17, 0.67). Findings highlight the importance of parents receiving hands-on education regarding the proper use of age-appropriate child restraints.

Buckle Up Safely (Shoalhaven): A Process and Impact Evaluation of a Pragmatic, Multifaceted Preschool-Based Pilot Program to Increase Correct Use of Age-Appropriate Child Restraints

Objective: To conduct a process and impact evaluation of a multifaceted education-based pilot program targeting correct use of age-appropriate restraints in a regional setting with a high proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. Methods: The program was delivered in 2010 in 3 early learning centers where 31 percent of the children were of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. Each component of the program was assessed for message consistency and uptake. To measure program effectiveness, participating children were matched 1:1 by age, language spoken at home, and annual household income with 71 children from the control arm of a contemporaneous trial. The outcome measure in the control and program centers (a 4-category ordinal scale of restraint use) was compared using ordinal logistic regression accounting for age of the parent. Results: Process evaluation found that though program components were delivered with a consistency of message, uptake was affected by turnover of all staff at one center and by parents experiencing difficulty in paying for subsidized restraints at each of the centers. Impact evaluation found that children from the centers receiving the program had nearly twice the odds of being in a better restraint category than children matched from the control group (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] = 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–3.90). Conclusions: This was a pragmatic study reflecting the real-life issues of implementing a program in preschools where 57 percent of families had a low income and turnover of staff was high. Despite these issues, impact evaluation showed that the integrated educational program showed promise in increasing correct use of age-appropriate restraints. The findings from this pilot study support the use of an integrated educational program that includes access to subsidized restraints to promote best practice child restraint use among communities that include a high proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in New South Wales. Future trials in similar settings should consider offering more support in centers with high turnover of staff and offering alternative methods of payment when families experience financial difficulties in purchasing the subsidized restraints. If proven in larger trials, this approach could reduce death and injuries in child passengers in this vulnerable group.

Disparities in Age-Appropriate Child Passenger Restraint Use Among Children Aged 1 to 12 Years

Observed racial disparities in child safety seat use have not accounted for socioeconomic factors. We hypothesized that racial differences in age-appropriate restraint use would be modified by socioeconomic status and child passenger safety information sources. A 2-site, cross-sectional tablet-based survey of parents seeking emergency care for their 1- to 12-year-old child was conducted between October 2011 and May 2012. Parents provided self-report of child passenger safety practices, demographic characteristics, and information sources. Direct observation of restraint use was conducted in a subset of children at emergency department discharge. Age-appropriate restraint use was defined by Michigan law. Of the 744 eligible parents, 669 agreed to participate and 601 provided complete responses to key variables. White parents reported higher use of car seats for 1- to 3-year-olds and booster seats for 4- to 7-year-olds compared with nonwhite parents. Regardless of race, <30% of 8- to 12-year-old children who were ≤4 feet, 9 inches tall used a booster seat. White parents had higher adjusted odds (3.86, 95% confidence interval 2.27-6.57) of reporting age-appropriate restraint use compared with nonwhite parents, controlling for education, income, information sources, and site. There was substantial agreement (82.6%, κ = 0.74) between parent report of their child's usual restraint and the observed restraint at emergency department discharge. Efforts should be directed at eliminating racial disparities in age-appropriate child passenger restraint use for children <8 years. Booster seat use, seat belt use, and rear seating represent opportunities to improve child passenger safety practices among older children.

Child Restraint Safety Practices Among Arab Children in Israel

Objective: Because the rate of injury and mortality from car crashes among Arab children is higher than among Jewish children in Israel, this study assesses the patterns of age-appropriate child restraint system (CRS) use in Arab towns in Israel. Methods: From October 2010 to September 2011, 4396 children ages 0 to 14 were observed while seated in vehicles in 9 Arab towns and villages in Israel. Results: Among infants aged 0 to 1 year old, 31.2 percent were observed in an age-appropriate restraint, whereas among children aged 1 to 4 years, only 12.4 percent were age-appropriately restrained. Children aged 5 to 9 were observed to have the lowest levels of age-appropriate restraint use (1.3%). The variation between the various villages was large and dependent on the age of the child. Conclusions: The low rates of CRS use may explain to some degree the high rates of injury and mortality of Arab children in car crashes. These low rates indicate that previous interventions have not been successful in increasing restraint use in the Arab community in Israel and there is a need to plan targeted interventions specifically for this population. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention to view the supplemental file.

Evaluation of an Education, Restraint Distribution, and Fitting Program to Promote Correct Use of Age-Appropriate Child Restraints for Children Aged 3 to 5 Years: A Cluster Randomized Trial

We evaluated an education, distribution, and fitting program for increasing age-appropriate and correct child restraint use. We performed a cluster randomized trial involving 28 early childhood education centers in low socioeconomic status areas in Sydney, Australia. The main outcome was optimal restraint use defined as age-appropriate restraints, installed into the vehicle correctly and used correctly. One service withdrew after randomization, so data are presented for 689 child passengers, aged 3 to 5 years, from 27 centers. More children attending intervention centers were optimally restrained (43% vs 31%; P = .01; allowing for clustering). More 3-year-olds were using forward-facing seats rather than booster seats, more 4- to 5-year-olds were using booster seats instead of seat belts alone, and there were fewer errors in use at intervention centers. Among non-English-speaking families, more children attending intervention centers were optimally restrained (43% vs 17%; P = .002; allowing for clustering). The program increased use of age-appropriate restraints and correct use of restraints, which translates to improved crash injury protection. Multifaceted education, seat distribution, and fitting enhanced legislation effects, and the effect size was larger in non-English-speaking families.

Increases in best practice child restraint use among children aged 2–5 years in low socioeconomic areas after introduction of mandatory child restraint laws in NSW Australia

BackgroundIn 2009 the Australian Road Rules were modified to specify use of age-appropriate restraints for children up to 7 years. Implementation of the new laws was expected to increase optimal...

Cluster randomised trial of an integrated, education, restraint subsidisation and fitting programme to increase child restraint use in 3-year-old to 5-year-old children

BackgroundWhile age-appropriate restraints protect child passengers against injuries, best practice child restraint use has been difficult to achieve.Aims/Objectives/PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness of an education and distribution programme in increasing age-appropriate...

Relative Benefits of Population-Level Interventions Targeting Restraint-Use in Child Car Passengers

Because public health resources for injury prevention are limited, methods for comparing competing strategies are needed. We aimed to estimate potential injury reductions for 4 population-level interventions that target restraint practices for child car passengers aged 0 to 12 years. Population-attributable risk fraction (PARF) is a population-level estimate of excess risk from exposure to a risk factor. PARFs were calculated for each intervention scenario by using published age-specific mortality/injury relative-risk estimates; restraint practices among injured child car passengers from police-collected data; and observational data for correctness of restraint use in New South Wales, Australia. PARF reductions were estimated for population uptakes of 25%, 50%, and 75%. Assuming a 50% population uptake, (1) promoting age-appropriate restraint use could prevent additional fatalities (5.1%, infants; 3.4%, 1- to 6-year-olds) and nonfatal injuries (3.2%, infants; 16.2%, 1- to 6-year-olds) compared with promoting any restraint use; (2) further encouraging correct age-appropriate restraint use could also prevent additional fatalities (9.1%, infants; 14.3%, 1- to 6-year-olds) and nonfatal injuries (9.2%, infants; 10.7%, 1- to 6-year-olds); and (3) for children aged 7 to 12 years, promoting correct use of restraints could prevent an additional 3.4% fatalities and 3.1% nonfatal injuries compared with promoting any restraint use. Interventions that target child passenger-restraint practices offer population-level benefits in terms of reduction in fatalities and injuries. These tangible benefits call for action internationally, not only to promote restraint use but correct age-appropriate restraint use for child car passengers.

Effect of Booster Seat Laws on Appropriate Restraint Use by Children 4 to 7 Years Old Involved in Crashes

To quantify the independent contribution of recently enacted booster seat laws on appropriate restraint use by child passengers in motor vehicles. Longitudinal study of children involved in crashes with data collected via insurance claims records and a validated telephone survey. Sixteen states and Washington, DC, from December 1, 1998, through December 31, 2004. Probability sample of 5198 vehicles in crashes involving 6102 children aged 4 to 7 years, representing 78 159 vehicles and 91 752 children. Booster seat law provisions, child age, state, and secular trends. Reported appropriate restraint use for this age group, including forward-facing child safety seats, belt-positioning booster seats, and combination seats. Children aged 4 to 7 years in states with booster seat laws were 39% more likely to be reported as appropriately restrained than were children in other states (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.70). Children aged 4 to 5 years were 23% more likely (PR,1.23; 95% CI, 0.80-1.42) and children 6 to 7 years twice as likely (PR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.46-2.99) to be reported as appropriately restrained. For children aged 6 to 7 years, when compared with no law, laws through age 7 years were most effective (PR, 3.71; 95% CI, 2.49-5.42), followed by laws through age 4 or 5 years (PR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89-2.24). Given the higher current use of age-appropriate restraints among children 4 to 5 years compared with older children, future upgrades to child restraint laws should include children through at least age 7 years to maximize the number of children properly restrained for their age.

Effects of Seating Position and Appropriate Restraint Use on the Risk of Injury to Children in Motor Vehicle Crashes

Currently, many states are upgrading their child restraint laws to include provisions for the use of age-appropriate restraints through 6 to 8 years of age, with some also requiring rear seating for children, enabling the laws to be in closer alignment with best-practice recommendations. To evaluate the relationships of seating position and restraint status to the risk of injury among children in passenger vehicle crashes. This was a cross-sectional study of children <16 years of age who were involved in crashes of insured vehicles in 15 states, with data collected via insurance claims records and a telephone survey. A probability sample of 17980 children in 11506 crashes, representing 229106 children in 146613 crashes, was collected between December 1, 1998, and November 30, 2002. Parent reports were used to define restraint status, seating position, and occurrence of clinically significant injuries, with the use of a previously validated instrument. Approximately 62% of the children used seat belts, 35% used child restraints, and 3% used no restraint. Nearly 4 of 5 children sat in the rear seat, with one half of all children being restrained appropriately for their age in the rear, although this varied according to the age of the child. Overall, 1.6% of children suffered serious injuries, 13.5% had minor injuries, and 84.9% did not have any injury. Unrestrained children in the front were at the highest risk of injury and appropriately restrained children in the rear were at the lowest risk, for all age groups. Inappropriately restrained children were at nearly twice the risk of injury, compared with appropriately restrained children (odds ratio [OR]: 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-2.3), whereas unrestrained children were at >3 times the risk (OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 2.5-4.1). The effect of seating row was smaller than the effect of restraint status; children in the front seat were at 40% greater risk of injury, compared with children in the rear seat (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2-1.7). Had all children in the study population been appropriately restrained in the rear seat, 1014 serious injuries (95% CI: 675-1353 injuries) would have been prevented (with the assumption that restraint effectiveness does not depend on a variety of other driver-related, child-related, crash-related, vehicle-related, and environmental factors). Age-appropriate restraint confers relatively more safety benefit than rear seating, but the 2 work synergistically to provide the best protection for children in crashes. These results support the current focus on age-appropriate restraint in recently upgraded state child restraint laws. However, it is important to note that considerable added benefit would be realized with additional requirements for rear seating.

Child safety seat knowledge among parents utilizing emergency services in a level I trauma center in Southern California.

To determine the level of child safety seat (CSS) and airbag safety knowledge in parents who utilize emergency care services for their children and to determine factors that influence knowledge of safe transportation of children. A prospective survey study was conducted in a 42 000-visit-per-year Level I trauma center and emergency department (ED) in Southern California from May through October 2000. Subjects were parents of ED-registered children (< or =6 years). Research assistants administered the survey in the subject's native language. Parent knowledge of age-appropriate restraint use and airbag safety was collected. Six hundred fifty-five subjects were enrolled. Most parents (97%) reported a regular source of pediatric medical care, and 57% had a previous ED visit. Eighty-six percent reported owning a CSS or booster seat. Eighty-one percent were aware that infants in rear-facing CSSs should never be placed in front of an airbag. Only 46% knew that a child weighing 40 to 60 lb should travel in a booster seat, and 59% knew that the State law required CSS use for children up to 4 years and weighing up to 40 lb. When knowledge scores were examined by ethnicity, fluency in English, income, and years of education, fluency was found to have the greatest influence on both CSS and airbag knowledge. Although nearly all of our subjects admitted that their children had a regular source of care, many parents showed evidence of lack of knowledge of CSS and airbag safety. Furthermore, many parents were not familiar with the state law regarding child restraints. Our findings suggest that parents of small children who utilize emergency care services could benefit from child passenger safety education during their ED visit and that non-English media and materials may be important to reaching this population.

Children in pickup trucks. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention.

Pickup trucks have become increasingly popular in the United States. A recent study found that in crashes involving fatalities, cargo area passengers were 3 times more likely to die than were occupants in the cab. Compared with restrained cab occupants, the risk of death for those in the cargo area was 8 times higher. Furthermore, the increased use of extended-cab pickup trucks and air bag-equipped front passenger compartments creates concerns about the safe transport of children. The most effective preventive strategies are the legislative prohibition of travel in the cargo area and requirements for age-appropriate restraint use and seat selection in the cab. Parents should select vehicles that are appropriate for the safe transportation needs of the family. Physicians have an important role in counseling families and advocating public policy measures to reduce the number of deaths and injuries to occupants of pickup trucks.