Dataset Information

Effectiveness of booster seats compared with no restraint or seat belt alone for crash injury prevention.

ABSTRACT: The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of belt-positioning booster seats, compared with no restraint use and with seat belt use only, during motor vehicle crashes among U.S. children.This was a retrospective matched cohort study with data from the 1998 through 2009 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). The study sample consisted of children aged 0 to 10 years who were not seated in the front seat of the vehicle. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the risk of overall, fatal, and regional body injury.Children using seat belts in belt-positioning booster seats experienced less overall injury (Injury Severity Score [ISS] > 0, adjusted risk ratio [RR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55 to 0.96; Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score of 2 or higher, adjusted RR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.58; ISS > 8, adjusted RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.56), and less injury in most body regions except the neck (adjusted RR = 4.79, 95% CI = 1.43 to 16.00) than did children with no restraint use. Children using seat belts in belt-positioning booster seats had an equal risk of injury but higher risks of neck (adjusted RR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.02 to 3.40) and thorax (adjusted RR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.33 to 6.15) injury than did children restrained by seat belts only.Children using belt-positioning booster seats appear to experience a higher risk of AIS > 0 injury to the neck and thorax than do children using seat belts only. Future research should examine whether the observed increase in neck and thorax injuries can be attributed to improper use of booster seats.

SUBMITTER: Ma X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3798005 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of booster seats compared with no restraint or seat belt alone for crash injury prevention.

Ma Xiaoguang X Griffin Russell R McGwin Gerald G Allison David B DB Heymsfield Steven B SB He Wei W Zhu Shankuan S

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20130901 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of belt-positioning booster seats, compared with no restraint use and with seat belt use only, during motor vehicle crashes among U.S. children.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a retrospective matched cohort study with data from the 1998 through 2009 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). The study sample consisted of children aged 0 to 10 years who were not seated in the front seat of the vehicle. ...[more]

PMID: 24050794

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 1 in 10 adults do not always wear a seat belt, with the lowest use rates reported among young adults.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of a 6-week automated behavioral text message program promoting seat belt use compared with an attention control.Design, setting, and participantsThis parallel, 2-group, single-blind, individually randomized clinical trial included a convenience sample of patients recruited from 4 emergency departments in 2 cities in Pennsylvania from December 2019 to September 2021, with follow-ups at 6 and 12 weeks after randomization. Patients in stable condition aged 18 to 25 years who, in standardized screening, reported driving or being a passenger in a car without always using a seat belt in the past 2 weeks were eligible for recruitment. Participants who completed a 2-week trial run-in phase were randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention or the assessment control. Data were analyzed from October 2019 to January 2020.InterventionsThe intervention group received Safe Vehicle Engagement (SAVE), a 6-week automated interactive text message program, including weekly seat belt use queries with feedback and goal support to promote consistent use of a seat belt. The control group received identical weekly seat belt use queries but no additional feedback.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of young adults reporting always wearing a seat belt over the past 2 weeks, collected at 6 weeks (after a 2-week run-in) via web-based self-assessments and analyzed under intent-to-treat models using multiple imputation procedures. Sensitivity analyses included complete-case analyses of ordered categorical outcomes by vehicle seat position. Secondary outcomes included seatbelt use at 12 weeks and select cognitive constructs related to seat belt use.ResultsA total of 218 participants (mean [SD] age, 21.5 [2.1] years; 139 [63.8%] women) were randomized, with 110 randomized to SAVE and 108 randomized to the control group. A total of 158 individuals (72.4%) were included in the 6-week follow-up. The rate of always using a seat belt over the past 2 weeks at the 6-week follow-up was 41.3% (95% CI, 30.6%-52.0%) among SAVE participants and 20.0% (95% CI, 10.6%-29.3%) among control participants (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.8; P = .005). A total of 140 individuals (64.2%) participated in the 12-week follow-up. At 12 weeks, the rate of always using a seat belt over the past 2-weeks was 42.8% (95% CI, 31.2%-54.2%) among SAVE participants and 30.7% (95% CI, 19.6%-41.6%) among control participants (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.4; P = .13). When examining ordered categories of seat belt use by seat position, there were significantly greater odds of wearing a seat belt at 6 and 12 weeks among SAVE participants vs control participants (eg, 6 weeks for driver: OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.6-10.5; 6 weeks for front passenger: OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2; 6 weeks for back passenger: OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, an interactive text message intervention was more effective at promoting seat belt use among targeted young adults than an attention control at 6 weeks. There was no significant difference between groups in always wearing a seat belt at 12 weeks. These findings, if replicated in a larger sample, suggest a scalable approach to improve seat belt use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03833713.

Project description:The study was conducted to determine the association between vehicle-, crash-, and demographic-related factors and injuries to front seat far-side occupants in modern environments.Field data were obtained from the NASS-CDS database for the years 2009-2012. Inclusion factors included the following: adult restrained front outboard-seated occupants, no ejection or rollovers, and vehicle model years less than 10 years old at the time of crash. Far-side crashes were determined by using collision deformation classification. Injuries were scored using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Injuries (MAIS 2+, MAIS 3+, M denotes maximum score) were examined based on demographics, change in velocity, vehicle type, direction of force, extent zone, collision partner, and presence of another occupant in the front seat. Only weighted data were used in the analysis. Injuries to the head and face, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, and upper and lower extremity regions were studied. Odds ratios and upper and lower confidence intervals were estimated from multivariate analysis.Out of 519,195 far-side occupants, 17,715 were MAIS 2+ and 4,387 were MAIS 3+ level injured occupants. The mean age, stature, total body mass, and body mass index (BMI) were 40.7 years, 1.7 m, 77.2 kg, and 26.8 kg/m2, respectively. Of occupants with MAIS 2+ injuries, 51% had head and 19% had thorax injuries. Of occupants with MAIS 3+ injuries, 50% had head and 69% had thorax injuries. The cumulative distribution of changes in velocities at the 50th percentile for the struck vehicle for all occupants and occupants with MAIS 2+ and MAIS 3+ injuries were 19, 34, and 42 km/h, respectively. Furthermore, 73% of MAIS 2+ injuries and 86% of MAIS 3+ injuries occurred at a change in velocity of 24 km/h or greater. Odds of sustaining MAIS 2+ and MAIS 3+ injuries increased with each unit increase in change in velocity, stature, and age, with one exception. Odds of sustaining injuries were higher with the presence of an occupant in the front seat at the MAIS 3+ level, although it was reversed at the lower level. The extent zone of 3+ increased the odds compared to the extent zones of 1 to 2 at both MAIS 2+ and MAIS 3+ injuries. Odds ratios and confidence intervals are given.The findings are as follows: head and thorax are the more frequently injured body regions, and the prevalence of cranium injuries is similar at both injury severities; thoracic injuries are more prevalent at the MAIS 3+ level; the presence of another front seat occupant plays a role in MAIS 3+ trauma; injuries continue to occur at changes in velocity representative of side impact environments; and mean demographic factors are close to mid-size automotive anthropometry, indicating the need to pursue this line of study. Because data were gathered from only 4 years, it would be important to include additional NASS-CDS database years, rescore injuries from previous years, and analyze other international databases to reinforce these findings for advancing safety for far-side occupants.

Project description:BackgroundSeat belts might save people's lives in car accidents by preventing severe collision damage and keeping passengers safe from critical injuries. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the prevalence of seat belt use among drivers and passengers.MethodsThe databases of PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar were searched from the beginning of 2000 to late December 2020 to identify studies that investigated the prevalence of seat belt use among drivers and passengers. The pooled prevalence was calculated using a random-effects model. The STATA-v14 software was used to perform data analysis.ResultsSixty-eight studies that met the inclusion criteria and were suitable for this meta-analysis were identified. The pooled prevalence of seat belt use was 43.94% (95% CI: 42.23-45.73) among drivers, 38.47% (95% CI: 34.89-42.42) among front-seat passengers, and 15.32% (95% CI: 12.33-19.03) among rear-seat passengers. The lowest seat belt use among drivers and passengers was observed in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, while the highest use was reported in Europe and America. Moreover, the prevalence of seat belt use was higher among women drivers [51.47% (95% CI: 48.62-54.48)] than men drivers [38.27% (95% CI: 34.98-41.87)] (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the highest prevalence of seat belt use was seen among drivers (68.9%) and front-seat passengers (50.5%) of sports utility vehicles (SUVs); in contrast, the lowest prevalence was observed among drivers and passengers of public vehicles such as buses, minibuses, and taxis.ConclusionsIn general, the prevalence of seat belt use was not high among drivers and was even lower among passengers. Moreover, drivers and passengers in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa had the lowest prevalence of seat belt usage. Additionally, drivers and passengers of public transportation (buses, minibuses, and taxis) had a lower rate of seat belt use, especially among men. Therefore, effective interventional programs to improve seat belt use should be designed and implemented, particularly among these at-risk populations in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of booster seats compared with no restraint or seat belt alone for crash injury prevention.

Publications

Effectiveness of booster seats compared with no restraint or seat belt alone for crash injury prevention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets