Correct and incorrect use of child restraints: results from an urban survey in New Zealand.

This study describes the incorrect use of child restraints among car drivers with young children and examines factors that may influence their misuse. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in supermarket car parks with car drivers travelling with children under the age of 8 years. The main measure was errors in child restraint use. Short interviews were conducted with 1113 drivers with a close inspection of the child restraints used in the vehicles. Only 4% of children were unrestrained but 64% of drivers made at least one error in restraint use. Most respondents thought using a restraint was easy, but 65% of these drivers made at least one error. Child restraints are used, but many are incorrectly fitted and/or have the child incorrectly placed in them. Correct use is a moderately complex task. Restraint systems need to be designed to minimize the opportunity for error and maximize safety.

Injury outcome indicators: the development of a validation tool.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have previously expressed concern about some national indicators of injury incidence and have argued that indicators should be validated before their introduction. AIMS: To develop a tool to assess the validity of indicators of injury incidence and to carry out initial testing of the tool to explore consistency on application. METHODS: Previously proposed criteria were shared for comment with members of the International Collaborative Effort on Injury Statistics (ICE) Injury Indicators Group over a period of six months. Immediately after, at a meeting of Injury ICE in Washington, DC in April 2001, revised criteria were agreed over two days of meetings. The criteria were applied, by three raters, to six non-fatal indicators that underpin the national road safety targets for Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Consistency of ratings were judged. CONSENSUS OUTCOME: The development process resulted in a validation tool that comprised criteria relating to: (1) case definition, (2) a focus on serious injury, (3) unbiased case ascertainment, (4) source data for the indicator being representative of the target population, (5) availability of data to generate the indicator, and (6) the existence of a full written specification for the indicator. On application of these criteria to the six road safety indicators, some problems of agreement between raters were identified. CONCLUSION: This paper has presented an early step in the development of a tool for validating injury indicators, as well as some directions that can be taken in its further development.

Examining child restraint use and barriers to their use: lessons from a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the suitability of four research methods to measure the rate of child restraint device (CRD) use and incorrect use in New Zealand and obtain data on barriers to CRD use. DESIGN AND SETTING: To assess the rates of CRD use among vehicles carrying children 8 years of age and under, two methods were piloted-namely, an unobtrusive observational survey and a short interview and close inspection. A self administered questionnaire and focus group interviews were also piloted to assess CRD use, reasons for use and non-use, and to obtain information on barriers to their use. Respondents to all methods except the focus groups were approached in supermarket car park sites at randomly selected times. Focus groups were established with parents identified through early childhood organisations. All methods were assessed on criteria related to efficiency, representativeness, and ability to obtain the necessary data. RESULTS: The observational survey provided a simple method for identifying rates of CRD use, while the self administered questionnaire obtained data on demographic characteristics and reported the installation and use/non-use of CRDs. The interview/inspection addressed all the questions of both the above methods and enabled incorrect CRD use to be examined. The focus groups provided the most meaningful information of all methods on barriers to CRD use. DISCUSSION: and conclusion: Advantages and limitations of these methods are discussed and some refinements of the original instruments are proposed. The interview/inspection and focus group methods were identified as being more appropriate for efficiently obtaining reliable data on CRD use and identification of barriers to CRD use.

Measure for measure: the quest for valid indicators of non-fatal injury incidence.

In this edition of Public Health, McClure and colleagues report on research that considered the criterion validity of indicators based on serious long bone fracture and length of stay in hospital. They found that neither were sensitive or specific indicators for serious injury as defined by an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or more. They contend that their study findings ' em leader strongly support a return to a measure similar in intent to that encapsulated in the original UK Green Paper em leader '. We contend that their analysis does not provide any empirical evidence to support their view that there should be a return to the Green Paper: Our Healthier Nation indicator. Furthermore, we consider the analyses that they carry out to validate both the Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation and the serious long bone fracture indicators are flawed. We agree that national (or state) indicators are very influential. They encourage preventive action and resource use aimed at producing favourable changes to these indicators. However, each of the four non-fatal indicators considered in their analysis have problems. Formal validation of existing indicators is necessary and the following aspects of validity should be addressed: face; criterion; consistency; and completeness and accuracy of the source date. Taking into account the current national data systems in England, possible options for one or more national non-fatal unintentional injury indicators have been proposed in our paper. Furthermore, the International Collaborative Effort on Injury Statistics (ICE) Injury Indicators Group is about to embark on the development of a strategic framework for the development of valid indicators of non-fatal injury occurrence.