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.     

The Influence of Enhanced Side Impact Protection on Kinematics and Injury Measures of Far- or Center-Seated Children in Forward-Facing Child Restraints

Objective: To evaluate the influence of forward-facing child restraint systems’ (FFCRSs) side impact structure, such as side wings, on the head kinematics and response of a restrained, far- or center-seated 3-year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD) in oblique sled tests.

Methods: Sled tests were conducted utilizing an FFCRS with large side wings and with the side wings removed. The CRS were attached via LATCH on 2 different vehicle seat fixtures—a small SUV rear bench seat and minivan rear bucket seat—secured to the sled carriage at 20° from lateral. Four tests were conducted on each vehicle seat fixture, 2 for each FFCRS configuration. A Q3s dummy was positioned in FFCRS according to the CRS owner's manual and FMVSS 213 procedures. The tests were conducted using the proposed FMVSS 213 side impact pulse. Three-dimensional motion cameras collected head excursion data. Relevant data collected during testing included the ATD head excursions, head accelerations, LATCH belt loads, and neck loads.

Results: Results indicate that side wings have little influence on head excursions and ATD response. The median lateral head excursion was 435 mm with side wings and 443 mm without side wings. The primary differences in head response were observed between the 2 vehicle seat fixtures due to the vehicle seat head restraint design. The bench seat integrated head restraint forced a tether routing path over the head restraint. Due to the lateral crash forces, the tether moved laterally off the head restraint reducing tension and increasing head excursion (477 mm median). In contrast, when the tether was routed through the bucket seat's adjustable head restraint, it maintained a tight attachment and helped control head excursion (393 mm median).

Conclusion: This testing illustrated relevant side impact crash circumstances where side wings do not provide the desired head containment for a 3-year-old ATD seated far-side or center in FFCRS. The head appears to roll out of the FFCRS even in the presence of side wings, which may expose the occupant to potential head impact injuries. We postulate that in a center or far-side seating configuration, the absence of door structure immediately adjacent to the CRS facilitates the rotation and tipping of the FFCRS toward the impact side and the roll-out of the head around the side wing structure. Results suggest that other prevention measures, in the form of alternative side impact structure design, FFCRS vehicle attachment, or shared protection between the FFCRS and the vehicle, may be necessary to protect children in oblique side impact crashes.     

Evaluating the Effect of a Mechanical Adjunct to Improve the Installation of Child Restraint Systems to Vehicles

Objectives: We explored if an alternative CRS design that utilized a mechanical adjunct to amplify the force applied to the adult seat belt (intervention CRS) results in more accurate and secure attachment between the CRS and the vehicle compared to similar CRS models that use LATCH or the existing adult seat belt. We conducted three separate studies to address this question and additionally explored: (1) the contribution of prior CRS installation experience (Study 1), (2) the value-added of CRS labeling (Study 2), and (3) paper-based vs. video instructions (Study 3).

Methods: In Studies 1 and 2 we assessed a forward facing combination CRS design (intervention CRS) compared to a commercially available LATCH equipped model (control CRS) and in Study 3 we conducted a similar study using a convertible model of both the intervention and control CRS. Participants installed both CRS in a contemporary minivan and could choose which type of attachment to use for the control CRS (LATCH or seat belt); order of installation was counter-balanced. Evaluators systematically examined installations for accuracy and security.

Results: Study 1: A greater proportion of participants in both the experienced and inexperienced groups was able to securely install the intervention CRS compared to the control CRS: (45% vs. 16%, p =.0001 for experienced) and (37% vs. 6%, p =.003 for inexperienced). No differences between the CRS were observed for accuracy of installation in either user group. Study 2: A greater proportion of participants were able to securely install the enhanced intervention CRS compared to the control CRS: (62% vs. 9%, p =.001). The intervention CRS demonstrated reduced installation accuracy: (30% vs. 61%, p =.001). Study 3: A greater proportion of participants was able to securely install the intervention CRS compared to the control CRS: 79% vs. 66% p =.03, but this effect was smaller than in the previous studies. Participants were less likely to achieve an accurate installation with the intervention CRS compared to the control CRS: 54% vs. 79%, p =.004. Common accuracy errors in each study included twisting or misrouting the seatbelt when installing the intervention CRS.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that novel CRS designs that utilize mechanical advantage to facilitate attachment of the CRS to the vehicle result in a tighter installation compared to LATCH equipped models, but an increase in accuracy errors occurred.     

Observed LATCH use and misuse characteristics of child restraint systems in seven states

INTRODUCTION: Although the LATCH System (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children) holds the promise of simplifying the installation of a child restraint system (CRS) to the vehicle's seat, many drivers transporting young children have difficulties using this technology. This paper reports on an observation study of LATCH use and misuse. METHOD: Observations of approximately 1,000 children less than 5 years of age in CRSs, in the back seats of vehicles that were equipped with tether and lower anchors, in seven states. RESULTS: Tethers were used for 51% of the children when the forward-facing CRS had tether straps and the vehicle had tether anchors. Lower anchors were used for 58% of the children when the CRS had lower attachments and the vehicle had lower anchors. The most common tether and lower attachment misuses were loose tether straps (18% of cases) and loose lower attachment installation (30% of the cases), respectively. Vehicle safety belts were used in combination with lower attachments in 20% of all lower anchor installations. CONCLUSION: As more caregivers of young children drive vehicles equipped with LATCH, it will be important to promote the proper installation of CRSs using this technology. LATCH education messages must also emphasize that the lower anchors may not always be the safest choice for CRS attachment -- the safest attachment is the one that results in a tight fit and will be used correctly consistently.     

Usability of non-standard lower anchor configurations for child restraint system (CRS) installation

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine whether the amount of tension required for proper child restraint system (CRS) installation varies with lower anchor spacing and to determine whether nonexperts can produce adequate tension on wider-than-standard lower anchor configurations.

Methods: CRSs were installed by certified child passenger safety technicians (CPSTs; n?=?6 subjects, n?=?72 installations) and nonexperts (n?=?30 subjects, n?=?120 installations) on a mock-up vehicle seat fixture with lower anchors set at 11 (standard), 15, 19, and 23 in. apart from one another. Each CPST installed a rear-facing (RF) infant base, RF convertible, and forward-facing (FF) convertible into each of the 4 spacing configurations in random order. The CPSTs were instructed to tighten the lower connector strap until the tension was exactly at the threshold between passing and failing the 1-in. test. Each nonexpert installed one CRS model into all 4 spacing conditions in random order. Nonexperts were instructed to install the CRS to the best of their ability. The tension produced on the lower connector strap was recorded via load cell in the lower anchor assembly of the vehicle seat. Resultant tension magnitudes were compared across spacing conditions using matched pair t-tests. The CPSTs’ mean 1-in. test threshold values were compared to tensions produced by nonexperts. Installations were visually evaluated for errors and qualitative usability feedback was collected via survey.

Results: CPSTs installed the infant base with higher tensions in the 15-, 19-, and 23-in. configurations compared to the standard 11-in. configuration (P = .034, .032, and .003, respectively). The nonexperts installed the infant base with higher tension in the 15- and 23-in. configurations compared to the 11-in. configuration (P = .004 and .026, respectively). The RF convertible and FF convertible installations showed no significant differences in tension among any of the spacing configurations for either group. Only 19% of the nonexperts’ installations were tight enough to pass CPST thresholds, and the pass rate did not vary with respect to lower anchor spacing. In feedback surveys, the nonexpert group did not show a consistent preference for either standard or wider-than-standard lower anchor configurations.

Conclusions: The amount of tension required to pass the 1-in. rule did not vary with lower anchor spacing configurations for the RF and FF convertible CRS, but the infant base required more tension in wider anchor configurations. Nonexperts tended to produce less than ideal tension in all configurations, although their tension magnitudes increased for the infant base in wider configurations.     

Differences in the kinematics of booster-seated pediatric occupants using two different car seats

Objective: The objective of this article is to compare the performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (CRS) mounted on 2 different seats.

Methods: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. Two different seats (seat A, seat B) were used. Three repetitions per ATD and mounting seat were done, resulting in a total of 12 sled crashes. Dummy sensors measured the head tri-axial acceleration and angular rate and the thorax tri-axial acceleration, all acquired at 10,000 Hz. A high-speed video camera recorded the impact at 1,000 frames per second. The 3D kinematics of the head and torso of the ATDs were captured using a high-speed motion capture system (1,000 Hz). A pair-matched statistical analysis compared the outcomes of the tests using the 2 different seats.

Results: Statistically significant differences in the kinematic response of the ATDs associated with the type of seat were observed. The maximum 3 ms peak of the resultant head acceleration was higher on seat A for the P3 dummy (54.5 ± 1.9 g vs. 44.2 ± 0.5 g; P =.012) and for the P6 dummy (56.0 ± 0.8 g vs. 51.7 ± 1.2 g; P =.015). The peak belt force was higher on seat A than on seat B for the P3 dummy (5,488.0 ± 198.0 N vs. 4,160.6 ± 63.6 N; P =.008) and for the P6 dummy (7,014.0 ± 271.0 N vs. 5,719.3 ± 37.4 N; P =.015). The trajectory of the ATD head was different between the 2 seats in the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes.

Conclusion: The results suggest that the overall response of the booster-seated occupant exposed to the same impact conditions was different depending on the seat used regardless of the size of the ATD. The differences observed in the response of the occupants between the 2 seats can be attributed to the differences in cushion stiffness, seat pan geometry, and belt geometry. However, these results were obtained for 2 particular seat models and a specific CRS and therefore cannot be directly extrapolated to the generality of vehicle seats and CRS.     

Vehicle characteristics associated with LATCH use and correct use in real-world child restraint installations

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to determine if vehicle features associated with LATCH ease-of-use in laboratory studies with volunteers predict LATCH use and misuse in real-world child restraint installations.MethodVehicle characteristics were extracted from prior surveys of more than 100 top-selling 2010–13 vehicles. Use and correct use of LATCH was determined from records of more than 14,000 child restraint installations in these vehicles that were inspected by child passenger safety technicians at Safe Kids car seat checkup events during 2010–12. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between vehicle features and use and correct use of lower anchors and top tethers, controlling for other relevant installation features.ResultsLower anchors were more likely to be used and correctly used when the clearance angle around them was greater than 54°, the force required to attach them to the lower anchors was less than 178 N, and their depth within the seat bight was less than 4 cm. Restraints were more likely to be attached correctly when installed with the lower anchors than with the seat belt. After controlling for lower anchor use and other installation features, the likelihood of tether use and correct use in installations of forward-facing restraints was significantly higher when there was no hardware present that could potentially be confused with the tether anchor or when the tether anchor was located on the rear deck, which is typical in sedans.ConclusionsThere is converging evidence from laboratory studies with volunteers and real-world child restraint installations that vehicle features are associated with correct LATCH use.Practical applicationsVehicle designs that improve the ease of installing child restraints with LATCH could improve LATCH use rates and reduce child restraint misuse.     

Standardized error severity score (ESS) ratings to quantify risk associated with child restraint system (CRS) and booster seat misuse

Objective: Although numerous research studies have reported high levels of error and misuse of child restraint systems (CRS) and booster seats in experimental and real-world scenarios, conclusions are limited because they provide little information regarding which installation issues pose the highest risk and thus should be targeted for change. Beneficial to legislating bodies and researchers alike would be a standardized, globally relevant assessment of the potential injury risk associated with more common forms of CRS and booster seat misuse, which could be applied with observed error frequency—for example, in car seat clinics or during prototype user testing—to better identify and characterize the installation issues of greatest risk to safety.

Methods: A group of 8 leading world experts in CRS and injury biomechanics, who were members of an international child safety project, estimated the potential injury severity associated with common forms of CRS and booster seat misuse. These injury risk error severity score (ESS) ratings were compiled and compared to scores from previous research that had used a similar procedure but with fewer respondents. To illustrate their application, and as part of a larger study examining CRS and booster seat labeling requirements, the new standardized ESS ratings were applied to objective installation performance data from 26 adult participants who installed a convertible (rear- vs. forward-facing) CRS and booster seat in a vehicle, and a child test dummy in the CRS and booster seat, using labels that only just met minimal regulatory requirements. The outcome measure, the risk priority number (RPN), represented the composite scores of injury risk and observed installation error frequency.

Results: Variability within the sample of ESS ratings in the present study was smaller than that generated in previous studies, indicating better agreement among experts on what constituted injury risk. Application of the new standardized ESS ratings to installation performance data revealed several areas of misuse of the CRS/booster seat associated with high potential injury risk.

Conclusions: Collectively, findings indicate that standardized ESS ratings are useful for estimating injury risk potential associated with real-world CRS and booster seat installation errors.     

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.     

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.     

Assessing tether anchor labeling and usability in pickup trucks

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate vehicle factors associated with child restraint tether use and misuse in pickup trucks and evaluate 4 labeling interventions designed to educate consumers on proper tether use.

Methods: Volunteer testing was performed with 24 subjects and 4 different pickup trucks. Each subject performed 8 child restraint installations among the 4 pickups using 2 forward-facing restraints: a Britax Marathon G4.1 and an Evenflo Triumph. Vehicles were selected to represent 4 different implementations of tether anchors among pickups: plastic loop routers (Chevrolet Silverado), webbing routers (Ram), back wall anchors (Nissan Frontier), and webbing routers plus metal anchors (Toyota Tundra). Interventions included a diagram label, Quick Response (QR) Code linked to video instruction, coordinating text label, and contrasting text tag.

Results: Subjects used the child restraint tether in 93% of trials. However, tether use was completely correct in only 9% of trials. An installation was considered functional if the subject attached the tether to a tether anchor and had a tight installation (ignoring routing and head restraint position); 28% of subjects achieved a functional installation. The most common installation error was attaching the tether hook to the anchor/router directly behind the child restraint (near the top of the seatback) rather than placing the tether through the router and attaching it to the anchor in the adjacent seating position. The Nissan Frontier, with the anchor located on the back wall of the cab, had the highest rate of correct installations but also had the highest rate of attaching the tether to components other than the tether anchor (seat adjustor, child restraint storage hook, around head restraint). None of the labeling interventions had a significant effect on correct installation; not a single subject scanned the QR Code to access the video instruction. Subjects with the most successful installations spent extensive time reviewing the vehicle manuals.

Conclusion: Current implementations of tether anchors among pickup trucks are not intuitive for child restraint installations, and alternate designs should be explored. Several different labeling interventions were ineffective at achieving correct tether use in pickup trucks.     

Effects of LATCH versus Available Seatbelt Installation of Rear Facing Child Restraint Systems on Head Injury Criteria for 6 Month Old Infants in Rear End Collisions

Objective: The Lower Anchor and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH) system was introduced in vehicles made after September 1, 2002 and intended to make installation of rear and forward-facing child safety seats easier. Due to the lack of rear impact testing of RFCRS required per the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), the purpose of this study was to explore the effects, if any, of installation method of RFCRS on the performance of commonly purchased makes and models of RFCRS. Specifically, we hypothesize that in a 48 km/h (29.8 MPH) rear-end collision, installation of RFCRS using the LATCH system will result in higher Head Injury Criteria (HIC) values when compared to using the available lap/shoulder seatbelt (Emergency Locking Retractor - ELR or Automatic Locking Retractor - ALR).

Methods: The test matrix included 36 rear impact sled tests conducted using 3 installation methods on 3 models of RFCRS: the Graco SnugRide® with and without the base, the Britax Chaperone with base-mounted anti-rebound bar, and the Evenflo Tribute®, a model of convertible rearward/forward facing restraint system used in the rearward facing mode. The seats were installed using the LATCH system, ELR lap/shoulder belts, or ALR lap/shoulder belts in seating positions 4 and 6 on a vehicle buck mounted to the sled test base. The infant seat and 6 month old CRABI anthropometric test device (ATD) installation methods were in accordance with standards set forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. All tests were conducted on pneumatic controlled acceleration sled (HYGE, Inc., PA, USA) at 48 km/h.

Results: Installation of infant seat type RFCRS using the LATCH system resulted in higher HIC₁₅ values when compared to using the available lap/shoulder seatbelt (ELR or ALR). The mean HIC₁₅ values were most severe when infant seat type RFCRS were installed using LATCH (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 394 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 133) compared to using either ELR lap/shoulder belts (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 218 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 65) or ALR lap/shoulder belts (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 194 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 78). The installation method did not result in a statistically significant difference in HIC for the convertible type RFCRS (Evenflo Tribute®). In many of the tests, the ATD's head struck the seatback in which the RFCRS was installed. These head strikes resulted in the higher HIC₁₅ scores recorded throughout the testing.

Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that LATCH does not offer equal protection to lap/shoulder belts from head injuries in rear impacts when used with infant seat type RFCRS.     

The effects of persistent audible seat belt reminders and a speed-limiting interlock on the seat belt use of drivers who do not always use a seat belt

Introduction: Vehicle technologies that increase seat belt use can save thousands of lives each year. Kidd, Singer, Huey, and Kerfoot (2018) found that a gearshift interlock was more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but interlocks may not be more effective than persistent audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds. Method: Forty-nine part-time belt users with a recent seat belt citation who self-reported not always using a seat belt drove two vehicles for 1 week each. Thirty-three drove a Chevrolet with an intermittent audible reminder followed by either a BMW with a persistent 90-second audible reminder (n = 17) or a Subaru with an incessant audible reminder (n = 16). The other 16 participants experienced the BMW persistent reminder followed by an interlock that limited speed to 15 mph during unbelted driving. These data were combined with data from 32 part-time belt users in Kidd et al. (2018) who experienced the intermittent reminder for 2 weeks or the intermittent reminder for 1 week and a gearshift interlock the next. Results: Relative to the intermittent reminder, seat belt use was significantly increased an estimated 30% by the BMW persistent reminder, 34% by the Subaru incessant reminder, and 33% by the speed-limiting interlock. Belt use was increased an estimated 16% by the gearshift interlock, but this change was not significant. More participants circumvented the speed-limiting interlock to drive unbelted than the audible reminders. Responses to a poststudy survey indicated that interlocks were less acceptable than reminders. Conclusions: Audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds and a speed-limiting interlock were more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but reminders were found more acceptable. Practical applications: Strengthening existing U.S. safety standards to require audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds for front-row occupants could save up to 1,489 lives annually.     

Seat belt use in the ambulance patient compartment by emergency medical services professionals is low regardless of patient presence,seating position,or patient acuity

Background: Inconsistent use of seat belts in an ambulance may increase the risk of injury for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals and their patients. Our objectives were to: (1) describe the prevalence of seat belt usage based on patient acuity and seat location, and (2) assess the association between EMS-related characteristics and consistent use of a seat belt. Methods: We administered a cross-sectional electronic questionnaire to a random sample of 20,000 nationally-certified EMS professionals, measuring seat belt use in each seating location of an ambulance during transport of stable, critical, or no patients. We included practicing, non-military, emergency medical technicians or higher who reported working in ambulances. We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the odds of consistent (≥50% of the time) use of seat belts for the rear-facing jump seat and right-sided crew bench during transport of stable and critical patients. Results: A total of 1431 respondents were included in the analysis. Patient compartment seat belt use varied with the highest use in forward-facing seats when no patient was being transported (59.8%) and lowest use in the left-side “CPR” seat with a critical patient (9.4%). Only 40.2% of respondents reported an agency policy regarding seat belt use while riding in the patient compartment. In all multivariable logistic regression models, advanced life support level certification and fewer years of experience were associated with decreased odds of consistent seat belt use. An agency seat belt policy was strongly associated with increased odds of seat belt use in the patient compartment. Conclusions: Seat belt use was low and varied by seating location and patient acuity in the patient compartment of an ambulance. Practical Applications: EMS organizations should consider primary prevention approaches of provider education, improved ambulance designs, enactment and enforcement of policies to improve seat belt compliance and provider safety.     

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.     

Compatibility of booster seats and vehicles in the U.S. market

Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze booster and rear vehicle seat dimensions to identify the most frequent compatibility problems.

Methods: Measurements were collected from 40 high-back and backless boosters and 95 left rear and center rear row seating positions in 50 modern vehicles. Dimensions were compared for 3,800 booster/vehicle seat combinations. For validation and estimation of tolerance and correction factors, 72 booster installations were physically completed and compared with measurement-based compatibility predictions. Dimensions were also compared to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) volumetric envelopes of forward-facing child restraints and boosters.

Results: Seat belt buckles in outboard positions accommodated the width of boosters better than center positions (success rates of 85.4 and 34.7%, respectively). Adequate head restraint clearance occurred in 71.9 to 77.2% of combinations, depending on the booster's head support setting. Booster recline angles aligned properly with vehicle seat cushion angles in 71.5% of combinations. In cases of poor angle alignment, booster angles were more obtuse than the vehicle seat angles 97.7% of the time. Head restraint interference exacerbated angle alignment issues. Data indicate success rates above 90% for boosters being fully supported by the length of the seat cushion and for adequate height clearance with the vehicle roofline. Comparison to ISO envelopes indicates that most boosters on the U.S. market are taller and angled more obtusely than ISO target envelopes.

Conclusions: This study quantifies some of the common interferences between boosters and vehicles that may complicate booster usage. Data are useful for design and to prioritize specific problem areas.     

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.     

Predictors of rear seat belt use among U.S. adults, 2012

IntroductionSeat belt use reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities among motor vehicle occupants in a crash, but belt use in rear seating positions is consistently lower than front seating positions. Knowledge is limited concerning factors associated with seat belt use among adult rear seat passengers.MethodsData from the 2012 ConsumerStyles survey were used to calculate weighted percentages of self-reported rear seat belt use by demographic characteristics and type of rear seat belt use enforcement. Multivariable regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios for rear seat belt use, adjusting for person-, household- and geographic-level demographic variables as well as for type of seat belt law in place in the state.ResultsRear seat belt use varied by age, race, geographic region, metropolitan status, and type of enforcement. Multivariable regression showed that respondents living in states with primary (Adjusted Prevalence Ratio (APR): 1.23) and secondary (APR: 1.11) rear seat belt use enforcement laws were significantly more likely to report always wearing a seat belt in the rear seat compared with those living in a state with no rear seat belt use enforcement law.Conclusions and practical applicationsSeveral factors were associated with self-reported seat belt use in rear seating positions. Evidence suggests that primary enforcement covering all seating positions is an effective intervention that can be employed to increase seat belt use and in turn prevent motor vehicle injuries to rear-seated occupants.