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. 相似文献
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. 相似文献
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. 相似文献
Objective
To assess the effect of the newly enacted child passenger safety law, Wisconsin Act 106, on self-report of proper restraint usage of children in Milwaukee's central city population.Method
A prospective, non-randomized study design was used. The settings used were (a) a pediatric urban health center, and (b) two Women, Infants and Children offices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Participants included 11,566 surveys collected over 18 months that spanned the pre-legislation and post-legislation time periods from February 2006 through August 2008.Results
The study set out to assess appropriate child passenger restraint. The results showed that the changes in adjusted proper restraint usage rates for infants between the pre-law, grace period, and post-fine periods were 94%, 94%, and 94% respectively. For children 1-3 years old, the adjusted proper usage rates were 65%, 63%, and 59%, respectively. And for children 4-7 years old, the rates were 43%, 44% and 42%, respectively. There was a significant increase in premature booster seat use in children who should have been restrained in a rear- or forward-facing car seat (10% pre-law, 12% grace period, 20% post-fine; p < 0.0005). There was no statistically significant change over time in unrestrained children (2.1%, 1.7%, 1.7%, p = 0.7, respectively).Conclusions
The passage of a strengthened child passenger safety law with fines did not significantly improve appropriate restraint use for 0-7 year olds, and appropriate use in 1-7 year olds remained suboptimal with a majority of urban children inappropriately restrained. Although the number of unrestrained children decreased, we identified an unintended consequence of the legislation - a significant increase in the rate of premature belt-positioning booster seat use among poor, urban children.Impact on Industry
The design of child restraint systems maximizes protection of the child. Increasing reports of misuse is a call to those who manufacture these child passenger restraints to improve advertising and marketing to the correct age group, ease of installation, and mechanisms to prevent incorrect safety strap and harness placement. To ensure accurate and consistent use on every trip, car seat manufacturers must ensure that best practice recommendations for use as well as age, weight, and height be clearly specified on each child restraint. The authors support the United States Department of Transportation's new consumer program that will assist caregivers in identifying the child seat that will fit in their vehicle. In addition, due to the increase in premature graduation of children into belt-positioning booster seats noted as a result of legislation, promoting and marketing booster seat use for children less than 40 pounds should not be accepted. Child passenger safety technicians must continue to promote best practice recommendations for child passenger restraint use and encourage other community leaders to do the same. 相似文献Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for severe injury (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score [MAIS] 4+F) to belted drivers and front passengers in frontal crashes by the presence of a belted or unbelted passenger seated directly behind them or without a rear passenger. Frontal crashes were identified with GAD1 = F without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front and rear outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4+F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0+F. Standard errors were determined.
Results: The risk for severe injury was 0.803 ± 0.263% for the driver with an unbelted left rear occupant and 0.100 ± 0.039% with a belted left rear occupant. The driver's risk was thus 8.01 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted occupant (P <.001). With an unbelted right rear occupant behind the front passenger, the risk for severe injury was 0.277 ± 0.091% for the front passenger. The corresponding risk was 0.165 ± 0.075% when the right rear occupant was belted. The front passenger's risk was 1.68 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant behind them than a belted occupant (P <.001). The driver's risk for MAIS 4+F was highest when their seat was deformed forward. The risk was 9.94 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted rear occupant when the driver's seat deformed forward. It was 13.4 ± 12.2% with an unbelted occupant behind them and 1.35 ± 0.95% with a belted occupant behind them.
Conclusions: Consistent with prior literature, seat belt use by a rear occupant significantly lowered the risk for severe injury to belted occupants seated in front of them. The reduction was greater for drivers than for front passengers. It was 87.5% for the driver and 40.6% for the front passenger. These results emphasize the need for belt reminders in all seating positions. 相似文献