Non-legislative interventions for the promotion of cycle helmet wearing by children

BACKGROUND

Helmets reduce bicycle-related head injuries, particularly in single vehicle crashes and those where the head strikes the ground. We aimed to identify non-legislative interventions for promoting helmet use among children, so future interventions can be designed on a firm evidence base.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of non-legislative interventions in increasing helmet use among children; to identify possible reasons for differences in effectiveness of interventions; to evaluate effectiveness with respect to social group; to identify adverse consequences of interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO (Ovid); PsycEXTRA (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED); Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI); Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S); and PubMed from inception to April 2009; TRANSPORT to 2007; and manually searched other sources of data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and CBAs. Studies included participants aged 0 to 18 years, described interventions promoting helmet use not requiring enactment of legislation and reported observed helmet wearing, self reported helmet ownership or self reported helmet wearing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) (with 95% confidence interval (CI)). We explored heterogeneity with subgroup analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies in the review, 21 of which were included in at least one meta-analysis. Non-legislative interventions increased observed helmet wearing (11 studies: OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.34). The effect was most marked amongst community-based interventions (four studies: OR 4.30, 95% 2.24 to 8.25) and those providing free helmets (two studies: OR 4.35, 95% CI 2.13 to 8.89). Significant effects were also found amongst school-based interventions (eight studies: OR 1.73, CI 95% 1.03 to 2.91), with a smaller effect found for interventions providing education only (three studies: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.88). No significant effect was found for providing subsidised helmets (seven studies: OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.17). Interventions provided to younger children (aged under 12) may be more effective (five studies: OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.37) than those provided to children of all ages (five studies: OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.42).Interventions were only effective in increasing self reported helmet ownership where they provided free helmets (three studies: OR 11.63, 95% CI 2.14 to 63.16).Interventions were effective in increasing self reported helmet wearing (nine studies: OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.56 to 6.87), including those undertaken in schools (six studies: OR 4.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 16.74), providing free helmets (three studies: OR 7.27, 95% CI 1.28 to 41.44), providing education only (seven studies: OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.63) and in healthcare settings (two studies: OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.61).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Non-legislative interventions appear to be effective in increasing observed helmet use, particularly community-based interventions and those providing free helmets. Those set in schools appear to be effective but possibly less so than community-based interventions. Interventions providing education only are less effective than those providing free helmets. There is insufficient evidence to recommend providing subsidised helmets at present. Interventions may be more effective if provided to younger rather than older children. There is evidence that interventions offered in healthcare settings can increase self reported helmet wearing.Further high-quality studies are needed to explore whether non-legislative interventions increase helmet wearing, and particularly the effect of providing subsided as opposed to free helmets, and of providing interventions in healthcare settings as opposed to in schools or communities. Alternative interventions (e.g. those including peer educators, those aimed at developing safety skills including skills in decision making and resisting peer pressure or those aimed at improving self esteem or self efficacy) need developing and testing, particularly for 11 to 18 year olds. The effect of interventions in countries with existing cycle helmet legislation and in low and middle-income countries also requires investigation.

Seroprevalence of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus in Australian blood donors, October - December 2009

Assessment of the severity of disease due to the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in Australian states and territories has been hampered by the absence of denominator data on population exposure. We compared antibody reactivity to the pandemic virus using haemagglutination inhibition assays performed on plasma specimens taken from healthy adult blood donors (older than 16 years) before and after the influenza pandemic that occurred during the southern hemisphere winter. Pre-influenza season samples (April – May 2009, n=496) were taken from donation collection centres in North Queensland (in Cairns and Townsville); post-outbreak specimens (October – November 2009, n=779) were from donors at seven centres in five states. Using a threshold antibody titre of 40 as a marker of recent infection, we observed an increase in the influenza-seropositive proportion of donors from 12% to 22%, not dissimilar to recent reports of influenza A(H1N1)-specific immunity in adults from the United Kingdom. No significant differences in seroprevalence were observed between Australian states, although the ability to detect minor variations was limited by the sample size. On the basis of these figures and national reporting data, we estimate that approximately 0.23% of all individuals in Australia exposed to the pandemic virus required hospitalisation and 0.01% died. The low seroprevalence reported here suggests that some degree of prior immunity to the virus, perhaps mediated by broadly reactive T-cell responses to conserved influenza viral antigens, limited transmission among adults and thus constrained the pandemic in Australia.

Once-daily indacaterol versus twice-daily salmeterol for COPD: a placebo-controlled comparison

Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled, once-daily, ultra-long-acting β(2)-agonist bronchodilator recently approved in Europe for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of indacaterol compared with placebo and the twice-daily β(2)-agonist, salmeterol, as an active control. Patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomised to 6 months double-blind treatment with indacaterol (150 μg once daily), salmeterol (50 μg twice daily) or placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was trough (24 h post-dose) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) after 12 weeks. 1,002 patients were randomised and 838 (84%) completed the study. Indacaterol increased trough FEV(1) at week 12 by 170 mL over placebo (p<0.001) and by 60 mL over salmeterol (p<0.001). Both active treatments improved health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire) and dyspnoea (transition dyspnoea index) compared with placebo, with differences between them favouring indacaterol. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment groups, and both indacaterol and salmeterol were well tolerated. Once-daily treatment with 150 μg indacaterol had a significant and clinically relevant bronchodilator effect over 24 h post-dose and improved health status and dyspnoea to a greater extent than twice-daily 50 μg salmeterol. Indacaterol should prove a useful additional treatment for patients with COPD.