An observational study of child safety seat use in an international safe community: Tehran,Iran

Objective: Despite strong evidence of the effectiveness of child safety seats in reducing injuries, the use of these devices in some communities is still rare. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of child safety seat use and the factors influencing its use in the safe community of Tehran.

Methods: This roadside observational study was conducted in 2015 and 2,178 personal cars with a child under 12 years aboard were observed on Tehran's streets in regard to use of child safety seats. Other variables such as the gender of the driver, driver's age group, type of street, region of municipality, time of day, and day of the week were also collected.

Results: Prevalence of child safety seat use was 4.3% and was significantly higher among women drivers, on freeways, and in municipal regions 1, 4, and 7.

Conclusions: The prevalence of child safety seat use in Tehran as a most populous member of the international safe community was very low and most children commuted in insecure situations in the vehicle. Therefore, it is proposed that plans should be made to increase the use of child safety seats in international safe communities.     

Characterizing the child passenger safety workforce in Michigan: A statewide survey in 2015

Objective: In this study, we assessed the number of child passenger safety technicians (CPSTs) in Michigan over 4 years and characterized the CPST workforce in 2015 to identify factors associated with high productivity and longevity in the field.

Methods: We determined the number of CPSTs and those newly certified using lists from the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) from 2012 to 2015. We conducted a statewide survey of Michigan CPSTs in October 2015. Analyses were conducted in 2016. The survey assessed demographic characteristics, reasons to enter the field and maintain certification, and motivations to conduct seat checks. We used CPST-reported time devoted to seat checks and average number of seats checked per month to create a composite “activity level” variable. We examined activity levels across several characteristics.

Results: The number of CPSTs ranged from 941 to 980 over the study period, with approximately 200 new certifications annually. In 2015, surveys were started by 496 of 962 eligible CPSTs and 427 submitted complete responses. CPST-instructors had a higher response rate than CPSTs in general (89 vs. 49%, P < .0001). The majority of respondents were women (71%) and self-identified as white (88%). More than one third were 35–44 years old. Just 7% were comfortable checking seats using a language other than English. “Personal reasons” were most often cited motivation for becoming a CPST and maintaining certification. Natural fit/job enhancement were more common reasons to maintain certification than become a CPST. Time and distance had the greatest influence on seat check participation. Perceived need, appointments vs. drop-in, and employer factors were very influential for 10–15% of CPSTs. Few CPSTs considered free food and payments/giveaways very influential. About 40% of respondents were considered high-activity (>24 seats checked/year), one third medium-activity (5 to 24 seats checked/year), and one quarter low-activity (<5 seats checked/year). High-activity CPSTs most commonly reported both being paid and volunteering their time to check seats, worked with a Safe Kids coalition, worked in law enforcement or social services, and had recertified at least once. Motivation to participate in seat checks did not vary with activity level.

Conclusions: Understanding the demographic characteristics and motivations of CPSTs can help Michigan OHSP recruit and retain a workforce dedicated to increasing the safety of child passengers. Agencies hosting seat checks can use these results to align the strategies they employ to incentivize CPSTs to serve in their communities with the factors that have the greatest influence on CPST participation.     

Reasons for Child Passenger Nonrestraint in Motor Vehicles

Objective: Although child passenger restraint use in motor vehicles has increased, there is an important minority of children who remain unrestrained. The goal of this study was to identify the frequency of and under what circumstances parents keep their children unrestrained.

Methods: A cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to parents and caregivers of children 10 years old and younger. Survey participants were asked about child restraint practices, including frequency of and reasons for nonuse of restraints. Parents were specifically asked how acceptable it would be to keep their child unrestrained in certain situations.

Results: One thousand two hundred eighty-five parents and guardians responded to the survey and 1,002 completed it; 23.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.3–26.6%) of respondents said they had driven with their child not fully restrained on at least one occasion. Approximately 1 in 5 parents strongly or somewhat agreed that it would be acceptable to keep their child unrestrained in certain situations, including a short drive, in a rush, an inadequate number of restraints, riding in a taxi, if somebody was holding the child, and as a reward for a child. Parents were more likely to agree that it was acceptable to keep their child unrestrained under nearly all circumstances listed if they were male, ages 18–29, with a graduate school education, in the $100,000+ income bracket, or Latino.

Conclusions: There are certain situations for which parents find it acceptable to leave their children unrestrained. This has implications for targeted child passenger safety efforts designed to maximize consistent restraint use.     

Parental awareness and perception for correct use of child restraint systems and airbags in Brazil

Objective: The objective of this study was to obtain information about the current knowledge and habits of parents who transport children in cars in Brazil.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using specifically designed self-report questionnaires to parents of children attending a private pediatric office in a town in southwest Brazil. Data were collected regarding children's age, gender, height, and weight and possession of an automobile child restraint system (CRS), its type, frequency and adequacy of use, and reasons for not possessing or not using the devices. Parents were asked whether their cars were equipped with airbags and about the use of the restraints in seats with airbags.

Results: We interviewed parents of 293 children transported in cars who met the criteria for use of a CRS. Children were younger than 1 year in 15.3% of the cases, between 1 and 4 years in 38.6%, and older than 4 in 46.1%. Cars were equipped with CRS in 78.5% of the cases, but in only 58% of the cases was the device proper for child's age and adequately installed in the seat. Among owners of the devices, 84.3% reported that they always used it. Reasons for infrequency were forgetting the device at home or in another car (6.4%), the child disliking the device (3.2%), or the false impression that the child was grown enough not to use it (3.2%)l 87.1% did not justify why they did not always use the CRS. Considering type of CRS, correct installation of the seat, and frequency of use, only 44.4% of children under 1 year, 69.9% of those 1 to 4 years, and 52.6% over age 4 were protected. Only 28.6% of the parents knew that children should never be positioned in a seat with active airbags.

Conclusion: Considering appropriateness for age, correctness of installation (in the back seat in the correct orientation), and frequency of use, only 50.85% (149/293) of the children were reported as always protected with a CRS. Children between 1 and 4 years were more likely to always use a CRS in this Brazilian survey. We were also able to identify an important gap in the knowledge about airbags among parents. Further efforts are needed to correct those distortions.     

Factors contributing to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes

Abstract

Objectives: Earlier research has shown that the rear row is safer for occupants in crashes than the front row, but there is evidence that improvements in front seat occupant protection in more recent vehicle model years have reduced the safety advantage of the rear seat versus the front seat. The study objective was to identify factors that contribute to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes in newer model year vehicles.

Methods: A case series review of belted rear seat occupants who were seriously injured or killed in frontal crashes was conducted. Occupants in frontal crashes were eligible for inclusion if they were 6 years old or older and belted in the rear of a 2000 or newer model year passenger vehicle within 10 model years of the crash year. Crashes were identified using the 2004–2015 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and included all eligible occupants with at least one Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 or greater injury. Using these same inclusion criteria but split into younger (6 to 12 years) and older (55+ years) cohorts, fatal crashes were identified in the 2014–2015 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and then local police jurisdictions were contacted for complete crash records.

Results: Detailed case series review was completed for 117 rear seat occupants: 36 with Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3+ injuries in NASS-CDS and 81 fatalities identified in FARS. More than half of the injured and killed rear occupants were more severely injured than front seat occupants in the same crash. Serious chest injury, primarily caused by seat belt loading, was present in 22 of the injured occupants and 17 of the 37 fatalities with documented injuries. Nine injured occupants and 18 fatalities sustained serious head injury, primarily from contact with the vehicle interior or severe intrusion. For fatal cases, 12 crashes were considered unsurvivable due to a complete loss of occupant space. For cases considered survivable, intrusion was not a large contributor to fatality.

Discussion: Rear seat occupants sustained serious and fatal injuries due to belt loading in crashes in which front seat occupants survived, suggesting a discrepancy in restraint performance between the front and rear rows. Restraint strategies that reduce loading to the chest should be considered, but there may be potential tradeoffs with increased head excursion, particularly in the absence of rear seat airbags. Any new restraint designs should consider the unique needs of the rear seat environment.     

Investigation of Child Restraint System (CRS) Compatibility in the Vehicle Seat Environment

Objective: Child restraint system (CRS) misuse is common and can have serious consequences to child safety. Physical incompatibilities between CRS and vehicles can complicate the installation process and may worsen CRS misuse rates. This study aims to identify the most common sources of incompatibility between representative groups of CRS and vehicles.

Methods: Detailed dimensional data were collected from 59 currently marketed CRS and 61 late model vehicles. Key dimensions were compared across all 3,599 theoretical CRS/vehicle combinations and the most common predicted incompatibilities were determined. A subset of 34 physical installations was analyzed to validate the results.

Results: Only 58.2% of rear-facing (RF) CRS/vehicle combinations were predicted to have proper agreement between the vehicle's seat pan angle and the CRS manufacturers’ required base angle. The width of the base of the CRS was predicted to fit snugly between the vehicle's seat pan bolsters in 63.3% of RF CRS/vehicle combinations and 62.2% of forward-facing (FF) CRS/vehicle combinations. FF CRS were predicted to be free of interaction with the vehicle's head restraint in 66.4% of combinations. Roughly 90.0% of RF CRS/vehicle combinations were predicted to have enough horizontal clearance space to set the front seat in the middle its fore/aft slider track. Compatibility rates were above 98% regarding the length of the CRS base compared to the length of the vehicle seat pan and the ability of the top tether to reach the tether anchor. Validation studies revealed that the predictions of RF CRS base angle range vs. seat pan angle compatibility were accurate within 6%, and head restraint interference and front row clearance incompatibilities may be more common than the dimensional analysis approach has predicted.

Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that RF CRS base angles and front row clearance space, as well as FF CRS head restraint interference, are frequent compatibility concerns. These results enable manufacturers, researchers, and consumers to focus their attention on the most relevant CRS/vehicle incompatibility issues in today's market.     

Rating child passenger safety laws relative to best practice recommendations for occupant protection

Background: State laws regarding child passenger protection vary substantially.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system to rate child passenger safety laws relative to best practice recommendations for each age of child.

Methods: State child passenger safety and seat belt laws were retrieved from the LexisNexis database for the years 2002–2015. Text of the laws was reviewed and compared to current best practice recommendations for child occupant protection for each age of child.

Results: A 0–4 scale was developed to rate the strength of the state law relative to current best practice recommendations. A rating of 3 corresponds to a law that requires a restraint that is sufficient to meet best practice, and a rating of 4 is given to a law that specifies several options that would meet best practice. Scores of 0, 1, or 2 are given to laws requiring less than best practice to different degrees. The same scale is used for each age of child despite different restraint recommendations for each age. Legislation that receives a score of 3 requires rear-facing child restraints for children under age 2, forward-facing harnessed child restraints for children aged 2 to 4, booster seats for children 5 to 10, and primary enforcement of seat belt use in all positions for children aged 11–13. Legislation requiring use of a “child restraint system according to instructions” would receive a score of 1 for children under age 2 and a 2 for children aged 2–4 because it would allow premature use of a booster for children weighing more than 13.6 kg (30 lb).

Conclusions: The scoring system developed in this study can be used in mathematical models to predict how child passenger safety legislation affects child restraint practices.     

Teaching infant car seat installation via interactive visual presence: An experimental trial

Objective: A large portion of child restraint systems (car seats) are installed incorrectly, especially when first-time parents install infant car seats. Expert instruction greatly improves the accuracy of car seat installation but is labor intensive and difficult to obtain for many parents. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of 3 ways of communicating instructions for proper car seat installation: phone conversation; HelpLightning, a mobile application (app) that offers virtual interactive presence permitting both verbal and interactive (telestration) visual communication; and the manufacturer's user manual.

Methods: A sample of 39 young adults of child-bearing age who had no previous experience installing car seats were recruited and randomly assigned to install an infant car seat using guidance from one of those 3 communication sources.

Results: Both the phone and interactive app were more effective means to facilitate accurate car seat installation compared to the user manual. There was a trend for the app to offer superior communication compared to the phone, but that difference was not significant in most assessments. The phone and app groups also installed the car seat more efficiently and perceived the communication to be more effective and their installation to be more accurate than those in the user manual group.

Conclusions: Interactive communication may help parents install car seats more accurately than using the manufacturer's manual alone. This was an initial study with a modestly sized sample; if results are replicated in future research, there may be reason to consider centralized “call centers” that provide verbal and/or interactive visual instruction from remote locations to parents installing car seats, paralleling the model of centralized Poison Control centers in the United States.     

Discordance between age- and size-based criteria of child passenger restraint appropriateness

Objectives: In this study, we sought to accomplish the following objectives: to (1) calculate the percentage of children considered appropriately restrained across 8 criteria of increasing restrictiveness; (2) examine agreement between age- and size-based appropriateness criteria; (3) assess for changes in the percentage of children considered appropriately restrained by the 8 criteria between 2011 (shortly after updates to U.S. guidelines) and 2015.

Methods: Data from 2 cross-sectional surveys of 928 parents of children younger than 12 years old (n = 591 in 2011, n = 337 in 2015) were analyzed in 2017. Child age, weight, and height were measured at an emergency department visit and used to determine whether the parent-reported child passenger restraint was considered appropriate according to 8 criteria. Age-based criteria were derived from Michigan law and U.S. guidelines. Weight, height, and size-based criteria were derived from typical restraints available in the United States in 2007 and 2011. The percentage appropriate restraint use was calculated for each criterion. The kappa statistic was used to measure agreement between criteria. Change in appropriateness from 2011 to 2015 was assessed with chi-square statistics.

Results: Percentage appropriate restraint use varied from a low of 19% for higher weight limits in 2011 to a high of 91% for Michigan law in 2015. Agreement between criteria was slight to moderate. The lowest kappa was for Michigan law and higher weight limits in 2011 (κ = 0.06) and highest for U.S. guidelines and lower weight limits in 2011 (κ = 0.60). Percentage appropriate restraint use was higher in 2015 than 2011 for the following criteria: U.S. guidelines (74 vs. 58%, P < .001), lower weight (57 vs. 47%, P = .005), higher weight (25 vs. 19%, P = .03), greater height (39 vs. 26%, P < .001), and greater size (42 vs. 30%, P = .001).

Conclusions: The percentage of children considered to be using an appropriate restraint varied substantially across criteria. Aligning the definition of appropriate restraint use with current U.S. guidelines would increase consistency in reporting results from studies of child passenger safety in the United States. Potential explanations for the increased percentage of children considered appropriately restrained between 2011 and 2015 include adoption of the updated U.S. guidelines and the use of child passenger restraints with higher weight and height limits.     

Predictors of restraint use among child occupants

Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify factors that predict restraint use and optimal restraint use among children aged 0 to 13 years.

Methods: The data set is a national sample of police-reported crashes for years 2010–2014 in which type of child restraint is recorded. The data set was supplemented with demographic census data linked by driver ZIP code, as well as a score for the state child restraint law during the year of the crash relative to best practice recommendations for protecting child occupants. Analysis used linear regression techniques.

Results: The main predictor of unrestrained child occupants was the presence of an unrestrained driver. Among restrained children, children had 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.27, 2.17) times higher odds of using the recommended type of restraint system if the state law at the time of the crash included requirements based on best practice recommendations.

Conclusions: Children are more likely to ride in the recommended type of child restraint when their state's child restraint law includes wording that follows best practice recommendations for child occupant protection. However, state child restraint law requirements do not influence when caregivers fail to use an occupant restraint for their child passengers.     

Ride-hailing with kids: Who’s got their back?

Introduction: As transportation network companies (TNC) are on the rise, assessing the safety of children traveling in these vehicles is imperative. For this reason, this study developed and adopted a scoring system to assess states’ safety standards for children traveling in TNC vehicles. Methods: The scoring was based on two parameters pertaining to child car seat laws for TNCs: clarity and stringency. For each parameter, three criteria that could impact child safety in TNC vehicles were formulated. If a state met a certain criterion it got 1 point and 0 otherwise. The authors gathered all the necessary information by reviewing state statutes in Nexus Uni, a legal research database. These reviews took place between December 2019 and October 2020, and this study evaluated state laws in effect on October 28, 2020. Results: During this assessment, the authors observed a lack of clarity in state child car seat laws, which could compromise safety of children traveling in TNC vehicles. For clarity of laws, Georgia and Indiana received the highest scores (3 out of 3 points), while 16 states scored only 1 point, which was the lowest score in this category. In terms of stringency of laws, Pennsylvania received the highest score (3 out of 3 points), while Indiana scored the least (0 points). Conclusions: Besides one state (Oregon), all other states defined TNCs in their state laws. All states except for Indiana and Washington required child car seats in TNC vehicles. The responsibility for child car seat use was clearly defined in 35 states. The fine for child car seat violation was $50 or more in 28 states. Practical Application: This study will help TNCs, policymakers, and stakeholders identify states that need to improve their standards for child safety in TNC vehicles, and comprehensively address the issue.     

Restraint use in the Eastern Province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Objectives: This study set out to examine seat belt and child restraint use in the Dammam Municipality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, based on the premise that an increase in seat belt use would significantly reduce personal injury in traffic crashes. It was expected that local data would help identify intervention strategies necessary to improve seat belt use in the region.

Methods: The research involved 2 methodologies. First, 1,389 face-to-face interviews were conducted with male and female adults in regional shopping plazas regarding their own and their children's restraint use in their vehicles and reasons for these attitudes and beliefs. Second, 2 on-road observation studies of adult and child restraint use were conducted by trained observers. Occupants of approximately 5,000 passenger vehicles were observed while stopped at representative signalized traffic intersections.

Results: The findings showed front seat belt use rates of between 43 and 47% for drivers and 26 to 30% for front seat passengers; rear seat belt use rates were lower. While there seemed to be some knowledge about the purpose and reasons for restraining both adults and children in suitable restraints, this failed to be confirmed in the on-road observations.

Conclusions: Reasons for these rates and findings are discussed fully, and recommendations for improving seat belt use in the Dammam Municipality are included.     

Parent driver characteristics associated with sub-optimal restraint of child passengers

OBJECTIVES: To identify parent driver demographic and socioeconomic characteristics associated with the use of sub-optimal restraints for child passengers under nine years. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using in-depth, validated telephone interviews with parent drivers in a probability sample of 3,818 vehicle crashes involving 5,146 children. Sub-optimal restraint was defined as use of forward-facing child safety seats for infants under one or weighing under 20 lbs, and any seat-belt use for children under 9. RESULTS: Sub-optimal restraint was more common among children under one and between four and eight years than among children aged one to three years (18%, 65%, and 5%, respectively). For children under nine, independent risk factors for sub-optimal restraint were: non-Hispanic black parent drivers (with non-Hispanic white parents as reference, adjusted relative risk, adjusted RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41); less educated parents (with college graduate or above as reference: high school, adjusted RR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.44; less than high school graduate, adjusted RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13-1.63); and lower family income (with $50,000 or more as reference: <$20,000, adjusted RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.07-1.40). Multivariate analysis revealed the following independent risk factors for sub-optimal restraint among four-to-eight-year-olds: older parent age, limited education, black race, and income below $20,000. CONCLUSIONS: Parents with low educational levels or of non-Hispanic black background may require additional anticipatory guidance regarding child passenger safety. The importance of poverty in predicting sub-optimal restraint underscores the importance of child restraint and booster seat disbursement and education programs, potentially through Medicaid.     

Evaluation of give kids a boost: A school-based program to increase booster seat use among urban children in economically disadvantaged areas

Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a series of 1-year multifaceted school-based programs aimed at increasing booster seat use among urban children 4–7 years of age in economically disadvantaged areas.

Methods: During 4 consecutive school years, 2011–2015, the Give Kids a Boost (GKB) program was implemented in a total of 8 schools with similar demographics in Dallas County. Observational surveys were conducted at project schools before project implementation (P₀), 1–4 weeks after the completion of project implementation (P₁), and 4–5 months later (P₂). Changes in booster seat use for the 3 time periods were compared for the 8 project and 14 comparison schools that received no intervention using a nonrandomized trial process.

The intervention included (1) train-the-trainer sessions with teachers and parents; (2) presentations about booster seat safety; (3) tailored communication to parents; (4) distribution of fact sheets/resources; (5) walk-around education; and (6) booster seat inspections.

The association between the GKB intervention and proper booster seat use was determined initially using univariate analysis. The association was also estimated using a generalized linear mixed model predicting a binomial outcome (booster seat use) for those aged 4 to 7 years, adjusted for child-level variables (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and car-level variables (vehicle type). The model incorporated the effects of clustering by site and by collection date to account for the possibility of repeated sampling.

Results: In the 8 project schools, booster seat use for children 4–7 years of age increased an average of 20.9 percentage points between P₀ and P₁ (P₀ = 4.8%, P₁ = 25.7%; odds ratio [OR] = 6.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5, 8.7; P < .001) and remained at that level in the P₂ time period (P₂ = 25.7%; P < .001, for P₀ vs. P₂) in the univariate analysis. The 14 comparison schools had minimal change in booster seat use. The multivariable model showed that children at the project schools were significantly more likely to be properly restrained in a booster seat after the intervention (OR = 2.7; 95% CI, 2.2, 3.3) compared to the P₀ time period and compared to the comparison schools.

Conclusion: Despite study limitations, the GKB program was positively associated with an increase in proper booster seat use for children 4–7 years of age in school settings among diverse populations in economically disadvantaged areas. These increases persisted into the following school year in a majority of the project schools. The GKB model may be a replicable strategy to increase booster seat use among school-age children in similar urban settings.     

Evaluation of interventions to make top tether hardware more visible during child restraint system (CRS) installations

Objectives: The objective of the study is to determine whether specific child restraint system (CRS) or vehicle conditions improve top tether attachment rates during volunteer installations.

Methods: A factorial randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate 4 different experimental categories: (1) Color of tether adjuster casing (black or red), (2) labeling on tether adjuster casing (labeled with “Tether: Use for forward-facing” or unlabeled), (3) storage location of tether (bundled in a rubber band on the back of CRS or Velcroed over the forward-facing belt path), and (4) labeling in vehicle (labeled under head restraint and below anchor or unlabeled). Ninety-six volunteers were randomly assigned to one combination of conditions. One installation per volunteer was completed. The primary outcome measure was acceptable attachment of the top tether to the tether anchor. The secondary outcome measure was overall secureness of the installation. Pearson’s chi-square tests were used to identify significant predictors of acceptable outcomes and logistic regression was used to investigate interaction effects.

Results: A total of 66/96 subjects (68.8%) attached the top tether in an acceptable manner, with either zero errors (n?=?50) or minor errors (n?=?16). A total of 30/96 subjects (31.2%) had unacceptable tether outcomes, with either major errors (n?=?10) or nonuse the tether at all (n?=?20). None of the 4 experimental categories significantly affected tether outcomes. Subjects who opted to install the CRS with the lower anchors (LAs) had higher rates of acceptable tether attachment compared to subjects who installed using the seat belt or those who used both LA and seat belt together (χ² = 6.792, P = .034). Tether outcomes were not correlated with previous CRS experience, use of instruction manual(s), age, or sex. Only 15.6% of subjects produced overall correct and tight installations. Of those who used the seat belt in some manner, 70.2% neglected to switch the retractor into locking mode.

Conclusions: Conditions in this study including tether color, tether labeling, storage location, and vehicle labeling did not significantly affect tether attachment rates. High rates of tether misuse and nonuse warrant further exploration to find effective solutions to this usability problem.     

Underutilization of occupant restraint systems in motor vehicle injury crashes: A quantitative analysis from Qatar

Introduction: Restraint systems (seat belts and airbags) are important tools that improve vehicle occupant safety during motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). We aimed to identify the pattern and impact of the utilization of passenger restraint systems on the outcomes of MVC victims in Qatar.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted for all admitted patients who sustained MVC-related injuries between March 2011 and March 2014 inclusive.

Results: Out of 2,730 road traffic injury cases, 1,830 (67%) sustained MVC-related injuries, of whom 88% were young males, 70% were expatriates, and 53% were drivers. The use of seat belts and airbags was documented in 26 and 2.5% of cases, respectively. Unrestrained passengers had greater injury severity scores, longer hospital stays, and higher rates of pneumonia and mortality compared to restrained passengers (P = .001 for all). There were 311 (17%) ejected cases. Seat belt use was significantly lower and the mortality rate was 3-fold higher in the ejected group compared to the nonejected group (P = .001). The overall mortality was 8.3%. On multivariate regression analysis, predictors of not using a seat belt were being a front seat passenger, driver, or Qatari national and young age. Unrestrained males had a 3-fold increase in mortality in comparison to unrestrained females. The risk of severe injury (relative risk [RR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49–2.26, P = .001) and death (RR = 4.13, 95% CI, 2.31–7.38, P = .001) was significantly greater among unrestrained passengers.

Conclusion: The nonuse of seat belts is associated with worse outcomes during MVCs in Qatar. Our study highlights the lower rate of seat belt compliance in young car occupants that results in more severe injuries, longer hospital stays, and higher mortality rates. Therefore, we recommend more effective seat belt awareness and education campaigns, the enforcement of current seat belt laws, their extension to all vehicle occupants, and the adoption of proven interventions that will assure sustained behavioral changes toward improvements in seat belt use in Qatar.     

Child safety and booster seat use in five tribal communities, 2010–2014

ProblemMotor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) including AI/AN children. Child safety seats prevent injury and death among children in a motor-vehicle crash, yet use is low among AI/AN children.MethodsTo increase the use of child safety seats (CSS; car seats and booster seats), five tribal communities implemented evidence-based strategies from the Guide to Community Preventive Services during 2010–2014. Increased CSS use was evaluated through direct observational surveys and CSS event data. CSS events are used to check the installation, use, and safety of CSS and new CSS can be provided.ResultsCSS use increased in all five programs (ranging from 6% to 40%). Four out of five programs exceeded their goals for increased use. Among the five communities, a total of 91 CSS events occurred resulting in 1417 CSS checked or provided.Conclusions and practical applicationsEvidence-based child passenger safety interventions are both feasible in and transferable to tribal communities.     

Seat strength in rear body block tests

Purpose: This study collected and analyzed available testing of motor vehicle seat strength in rearward loading by a body block simulating the torso of an occupant. The data were grouped by single recliner, dual recliner, and all belts to seat (ABTS) seats.

Methods: The strength of seats to rearward loading has been evaluated with body block testing from 1964 to 2008. The database of available tests includes 217 single recliner, 65 dual recliner, and 18 ABTS seats. The trends in seat strength were determined by linear regression and differences between seat types were evaluated by Student's t-test. The average peak moment and force supported by the seat was determined by decade of vehicle model year (MY).

Results: Single recliner seats were used in motor vehicles in the 1960s to 1970s. The average strength was 918 ± 224 Nm (n = 26) in the 1960s and 1,069 ± 293 Nm (n = 65) in the 1980s. There has been a gradual increase in strength over time. Dual recliner seats started to phase into vehicles in the late 1980s. By the 2000s, the average strength of single recliner seats increased to 1,501 ± 335 Nm (n = 14) and dual recliner seats to 2,302 ± 699 Nm (n = 26). Dual recliner seats are significantly stronger than single recliner seats for each decade of comparison (P < .001). The average strength of ABTS seats was 4,395 ± 1,185 in-lb for 1989–2004 MY seats (n = 18). ABTS seats are significantly stronger than single or dual recliner seats (P < .001). The trend in ABTS strength is decreasing with time and converging toward that of dual recliner seats.

Conclusions: Body block testing is an quantitative means of evaluating the strength of seats for occupant loading in rear impacts. There has been an increase in conventional seat strength over the past 50 years. By the 2000s, most seats are 1,700–3,400 Nm moment strength. However, the safety of a seat is more complex than its strength and depends on many other factors.