How motorcycle helmets affect trauma mortality: Clinical and policy implications

The prevalence of helmet use in motorcyclists around the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5,006,476 participants

Road traffic injuries present a significant public health burden, especially in developing countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized global evidence on motorcycle helmet use prevalence by including 299 records across 249 articles involving 5,006,476 participants from 1982 to 2022. The findings revealed a declining trend in helmet use prevalence over the past four decades, with an overall prevalence of 48.71%. The meta-regression analysis did not find any statistically significant change in the overall prevalence. Subgroup analysis showed higher helmet use prevalence in observation/survey records (54.29%) compared to crashed patient records (44.84%). Riders/Motorcyclists demonstrated a higher likelihood of wearing helmets than passengers in both observation/survey records (62.61 vs. 28.23%) and crashed patient records (47.76 vs. 26.61%). Countries with mandatory helmet use laws had higher helmet usage prevalence compared to those without (52.26 vs. 37.21%). The African continent had the lowest helmet use rates, while Latin America and the Caribbean regions had higher rates. This study provides a comprehensive overview of global helmet use prevalence, emphasizing disparities between high and low-income countries, variations in law enforcement, and trends over four decades. Targeted interventions are necessary to improve helmet-wearing habits, especially among passengers and regions with low usage rates. Effective legislation and awareness campaigns are crucial for promoting helmet use and reducing road traffic injuries burden.

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Background

Road Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high-income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence-based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high-income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.

Objectives

The objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.

Search Methods

The EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.

Selection Criteria

The interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post-crash pre-hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non-fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.

Data Collection and Analysis

The EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case-control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post-crash pre-hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non-fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety-six percent of the studies were reported from high-income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper-middle-income countries, and only 1.4% from lower-middle and low-income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.

Authors' Conclusions

The EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence-synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

National analysis of motorcycle associated injuries and fatalities: Wearing helmet saves lives

INTRODUCTION

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet represents a public health risk that can result in disabling injuries or death. We aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of helmet use on motorcycle injuries, injury types, and fatalities, to highlight areas requiring future intervention.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study utilizing the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File between 2017 and 2020 analyzing motorcycle associated injuries and fatalities in adult patients with moderate and severe injury severity score in relation to helmet use. Multivariable regressions were utilized and adjusted for potential confounders. A subset analysis was performed for patients presenting with abbreviated injury scale (AIS) head ≥3 and all other body regions ≤2.

RESULTS

43,225 patients met study criteria, of which 24,389 (56.4%) were helmet users and 18,836 (43.6%) were not. Helmet use was associated with a 35% reduction in the relative risk of expiring in the hospital due to motorcycle-related injuries (aOR 0.65; 95% CI [0.59-0.70]; p < 0.001) and a decreased intensive care unit length of stay (ICU-LOS) by half a day (B = -0.50; 95% CI [-0.77, -0.24]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Motorcycle riders without a helmet had significantly greater odds of increased in-hospital mortality and longer stays in the ICU than those who used a helmet. The results of this nationwide study support the need for continued research exploring the significance of helmet use and interventions aimed at improving helmet usage among motorcyclists.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Helmet Wearing Saves the Cost of Motorcycle Head Injuries: A Case Study from Karachi, Pakistan

Purpose

To estimate the difference in healthcare cost of head injuries among motorcycle helmet users and non-users.

Methods

Motorcycle crash victims with head injuries that were brought to a public, tertiary care emergency room in Karachi were studied through a descriptive cross-sectional design. A standard questionnaire was used to collect data on demographics, injury pattern, helmeting practice, length of hospital stay, out-of-pocket payments (OOPs), and healthcare service utilization at the facility to estimate total healthcare and other costs applying micro-costing methods during the hospitalization period.

Results

A total of 323 motorcyclists involved in crash were brought to a public tertiary care ER, 112 patients had head injuries and were enrolled in the study. The helmeted motorcyclists had a significantly lower median total healthcare cost of PKR 10,796 ($69) [IQR 9851 ($63)–PKR 12,581 ($80)] compared to higher cost of PKR 12,113 ($77) [IQR 10,431 ($66)−50,545 ($322)] (p value = 0.046) in non-helmeted. Helmet users expended significantly less cost on laboratory tests, PKR 365 ($2) [IQR 365 ($2)–548 ($3)] compared to PKR 3650 ($23) [IQR 365 ($2)–5840 ($37)] (p value =0.027) among non-users. Furthermore, cost of radiological investigations was also low among helmeted patients compared to non-helmeted ones, median PKR 4096 ($26) [IQR 3166 ($20)–5678 ($36)] vs 4750 ($30) [3166 ($20)−11,358 ($72)] (p value =0.049). The out-of-pocket payments (OOPs) for healthcare services were lower among helmet users as compared to non-users, with cost of PKR 17,750 ($113) [IQR 16,650 ($106)–18,000 ($115)] vs PKR 19,800 ($126) [IQR 12,300 ($78)–30,900 ($197)] (p value =0.03), respectively.

Conclusion

The result of this study demonstrates that helmet use among motorcyclists significantly reduced healthcare costs and healthcare resource utilizations during hospitalization for head injuries in Pakistan. Thus, it is important to implement strict helmet wearing laws to decrease head injuries and the cost burden on the healthcare facility and patients.