How can we teach them about neurotrauma prevention? Prospective and randomized "Pense Bem-Caxias do Sul" study with multiple interventions in preteens and adolescents

Education, incentive, and engineering-based interventions to promote the use of seat belts

BACKGROUND

Over 1.3 million people die each year as a result of traffic collisions and hundreds of thousands of others are permanently and seriously injured. Most of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, where mortality rates can be up to 10 times higher than those of some high-income countries. Seat belts are designed to accomplish two key functions - to prevent the occupant from being ejected from the vehicle by the force of impact, and to extend the time that the decelerating force is applied to a person. Seat belts also spread the area of impact both to larger and less vulnerable parts of the body. Since the 1950s, seat belts have been factory-fitted to most vehicles, and today around 90% of high-income countries have adopted seat belt legislation that makes it mandatory for some, if not all, vehicle occupants to wear seat belts. However, the simple passing of laws is not sufficient to ensure seat belt use, and, while the enforcement of seat belt laws does increase seat belt use, other interventions have been developed to encourage voluntary - and hence sustainable - behaviour change.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits of behavioural-change interventions (educational-based, incentive-based, engineering-based, or a combination, but not enforcement-based) that promote the use of seat belts, and to determine which types of interventions are most effective.

SEARCH METHODS

On 9 August 2022, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), OvidSP Embase, OvidSP MEDLINE, 14 other databases, and clinical trials registers. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings, searched websites of relevant organisations, and contacted road safety experts. The search was performed with no restrictions in terms of language and date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both individually randomised and cluster-randomised, that evaluated education, engineering, incentive-based interventions (or combinations) that promoted seat belt use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of RCTs, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed a narrative synthesis based on effect direction due to the heterogeneity observed between RCTs and reported the synthesis in accordance with reporting guidelines for systematic reviews without meta-analysis, as appropriate. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We analysed data on the primary outcome, frequency of wearing a seat belt. None of the included RCTs reported the other primary outcome, crash-related injury rate or the secondary outcome, crash-related mortality rates of interest in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 completed RCTs (12 individual, parallel-group, and three cluster) that enroled 12,081 participants, published between 1990 and 2022. Four trials were published between 2019 and 2022, and the remaining trials were published 10 or more years ago. We also identified four ongoing RCTs. Thirteen RCTs were conducted in the USA. Trials recruited participants from various sites (worksites, schools, emergency departments, a residential retirement community, and primary care settings) and different age groups (adults, late adolescents, early adolescents, and dyads). Thirteen trials investigated educational interventions, one of which used education in addition to incentives (one of the intervention arms) measured through participant self-reports (12) and observation (one), and two trials investigated engineering-based interventions measured through in-vehicle data monitor systems at various follow-up periods (six weeks to 36 months). We grouped RCTs according to types of education-based interventions: behavioural education-based, health risk appraisal (HRA), and other education-based interventions. The evidence suggests that behavioural education-based (four trials) interventions may promote seat belt use and HRA interventions (one trial) likely promote seat belt use in the short term (six weeks to nine months). Four of the six trials that investigated behavioural education-based interventions found that the intervention compared to no or another intervention may promote seat belt use. These effects were measured through participant self-report and at various time points (six-week to 12-month follow-up) (low-certainty evidence). One of the three trials investigating HRA only or with additional intervention versus no or another intervention showed observed effects likely to promote seat belt use (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that engineering-based interventions using vehicle monitoring systems (with in-vehicle alerts and with or without notifications/feedback) may promote the use of seat belts. One trial showed that engineering interventions (in-vehicle alerts and feedback) may promote seat belt use while the other showed unclear effects in two of the three intervention groups (low-certainty evidence). Both trials had small sample sizes and high baseline seat belt use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that behavioural education-based interventions may promote seat belt use and HRA (including incentives) with or without additional interventions likely promote seat belt use. Likewise, for engineering-based interventions using in-vehicle data monitor systems with in-vehicle alerts, with or without notifications/feedback the evidence suggests the interventions may promote the use of seat belts. Well-designed RCTs are needed to further investigate the effectiveness of education and engineering-based interventions. High-quality trials that examine the potential benefits of incentives to promote seat belt use, either alone or in combination with other interventions, as well as trials to investigate other types of interventions (such as technology, media/publicity, enforcement, insurance schemes, employer programmes, etc.) to promote the use of seat belts, are needed. Evidence from low- and middle-income economies is required to improve the generalisability of the data. In addition, research focused on determining which interventions or types of interventions are most effective in different population groups is needed.

Preventing Unintentional Injuries in School-Aged Children: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Unintentional injuries constitute the leading causes of death and long-term disabilities among children aged 5 to 15 years. We aimed to systematically review published literature on interventions designed to prevent unintentional injuries among school-aged children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO and screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We included randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. The focus of included studies was on primary prevention measures. Two reviewers collected data on type of study design, setting, population, intervention, types of injuries, outcomes assessed, and statistical results.

RESULTS

Of 30 179 identified studies, 117 were included in this review. Most of these studies were conducted in high-income countries and addressed traffic-related injuries. Evidence from included studies reveals that multicomponent educational interventions may be effective in improving safety knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in school-aged children mainly when coupled with other approaches. Laws/legislation were shown to be effective in increasing cycle helmet use and reducing traffic-related injury rates. Findings reveal the relevance of infrastructure modification in reducing falls and improving pedestrian safety among children.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of unintentional injury prevention interventions on injury, hospitalizations, and mortality rates and the impact of laws and legislation and infrastructure modification on preventing unintentional injuries among school-aged children.

Prevention of childhood unintentional injuries in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Injuries are a leading cause of death and disability among children. Numerous injury prevention strategies have been successful in high-income countries, but the majority of unintentional injuries happen to children living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This project aims to delineate the childhood injury prevention initiatives in LMICs. For inclusion, peer-reviewed articles needed to address unintentional injury, include children <18, assess a prevention-related intervention, contain a control group, and be published after 1988. Two pairs of reviewers evaluated articles independently to determine study eligibility. 74 articles were included. 30 studies addressed road traffic injuries, 11 drowning, 8 burns, 3 falls, 8 poisonings, and 21 an unspecified injury type. The findings show positive effects on injury outcome measures following educational interventions, the need for longer follow-up periods after the intervention, the need for effectiveness trials for behavior change, and the need for an increase in injury prevention services in LMICs. This is the first systematic review to summarize the prevention initiatives for all types of childhood unintentional injuries in LMICs. Increased attention and funding are required to go beyond educational initiatives with self-reported measures and little follow-up time to robust interventions that will reduce the global burden of unintentional injuries among children.

Pediatric and adolescent injury in skateboarding

Skateboarding has become an international action sport attractive to young people. For this reason, skateboarding has been promoted by some researchers as important for encouraging young people to become more physically active. However, skateboarding is also considered to be inherently dangerous by the medical and broader community and as a result skateboarding is banned in many places. This paper reviews scientific literature on the features, outcomes and risk factors related to skateboarding injuries. Findings suggest that while skateboarding injuries can be severe, skateboarding is not as dangerous as it might appear if appropriate risk management steps are taken. Skateboarding should be encouraged as a worthy physical activity and local communities should consider providing specialised, supervised spaces for young people to practice this sport.

School-based education programmes for the prevention of unintentional injuries in children and young people

BACKGROUND

Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death in children aged four to 18 years and are a major cause of ill health. The school setting offers the opportunity to deliver preventive interventions to a large number of children and has been used to address a range of public health problems. However, the effectiveness of the school setting for the prevention of different injury mechanisms in school-aged children is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of school-based educational programmes for the prevention of injuries in children and evaluate their impact on improving children's safety skills, behaviour and practices, and knowledge, and assess their cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent searches up to 16 September 2016 for the following electronic databases: Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R); Embase and Embase Classic (Ovid); ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded; ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science; ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index; ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Sciences & Humanities; and the 14 October 2016 for the following electronic databases: Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED); Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA); CINAHL Plus (EBSCO); ZETOC; LILACS; PsycINFO; ERIC; Dissertation Abstracts Online; IBSS; BEI; ASSIA; CSA Sociological Abstracts; Injury Prevention Web; SafetyLit; EconLit (US); PAIS; UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio; Open Grey; Index to Theses in the UK and Ireland; Bibliomap and TRoPHI.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs), and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies that evaluated school-based educational programmes aimed at preventing a range of injury mechanisms. The primary outcome was self-reported or medically attended unintentional (or unspecified intent) injuries and secondary outcomes were observed safety skills, observed behaviour, self-reported behaviour and safety practices, safety knowledge, and health economic outcomes. The control groups received no intervention, a delayed injury-prevention intervention or alternative school-based curricular activities. We included studies that aimed interventions at primary or secondary prevention of injuries from more than one injury mechanism and were delivered, in part or in full, in schools catering for children aged four to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors identified relevant trials from title and abstracts of studies identified in searches and two review authors extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias. We grouped different types of interventions according to the outcome assessed and the injury mechanism targeted. Where data permitted, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to provide a summary of results across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 27 studies reported in 30 articles. The studies had 73,557 participants with 12 studies from the US; four from China; two from each of Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK; and one from each of Israel, Greece and Brazil. Thirteen studies were RCTs, six were non-RCTs and eight were CBAs. Of the included studies, 18 provided some element of the intervention in children aged four to 11 years, 17 studies included children aged 11 to 14 years and nine studies included children aged 14 to 18 years.The overall quality of the results was poor, with the all studies assessed as being at high or unclear risks of bias across multiple domains, and varied interventions and data collection methods employed. Interventions comprised information-giving, peer education or were multi-component.Seven studies reported the primary outcome of injury occurrence and only three of these were similar enough to combine in a meta-analysis, with a pooled incidence rate ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.08; 2073 children) and substantial statistical heterogeneity (I² = 63%). However, this body of evidence was low certainty, due to concerns over this heterogeneity (inconsistency) and imprecision. This heterogeneity may be explained by the non-RCT study design of one of the studies, as a sensitivity analysis with this study removed found stronger evidence of an effect and no heterogeneity (I² = 0%).Two studies report an improvement in safety skills in the intervention group. Likewise, the four studies measuring observed safety behaviour reported an improvement in the intervention group relative to the control. Thirteen out of 19 studies describing self-reported behaviour and safety practices showed improvements, and of the 21 studies assessing changes in safety knowledge, 19 reported an improvement in at least one question domain in the intervention compared to the control group. However, we were unable to pool data for our secondary outcomes, so our conclusions were limited, as they were drawn from highly diverse single studies and the body of evidence was low (safety skills) or very low (behaviour, safety knowledge) certainty. Only one study reported intervention costs but did not undertake a full economic evaluation (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether school-based educational programmes can prevent unintentional injuries. More high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the impact of educational programmes on injury occurrence. There is some weak evidence that such programmes improve safety skills, behaviour/practices and knowledge, although the evidence was of low or very low quality certainty. We found insufficient economic studies to assess cost-effectiveness.