An Adapted Child Safety Seat Hassles Score Is Associated With Suboptimal Child Passenger Safety Behaviors Among Parents.

OBJECTIVE: We modified the Child Safety Seat (CSS) Hassles Scale to characterize CSS hassles in a diverse population and test for associations between hassles and caregiver-reported child passenger safety behaviors. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a 2-site survey of caregivers seeking emergency care for their ≤10-year-old child in 2015. Caregivers answered questions regarding CSS hassles, child passenger safety behaviors, and demographics. Size-appropriate restraint use was defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2011 Guidelines for Child Passenger Safety. We tested for associations between the number of hassles and adherence to AAP guidelines (including the consistent use of a size-appropriate CSS, travel in a back seat, and never traveling unrestrained). RESULTS: There were 238 caregivers included in analyses. Overall, caregivers endorsed a median of 5 hassles (interquartile range 2, 8). Half (50.8%) of caregivers endorsed child passenger safety behaviors that were nonadherent to AAP guidelines. Compared with caregivers reporting no hassles, there was an increased odds of not adhering to AAP child passenger safety guidelines for each additional hassle reported (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03, 1.19). In addition, a higher number of hassles was associated with the inconsistent use of a size-appropriate CSS (aOR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06, 1.25) and as sometimes traveling unrestrained (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03, 1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers who reported more CSS hassles were more likely to report behaviors that were not adherent to AAP guidelines. Addressing CSS hassles may provide solutions for nonadherence of AAP child passenger safety guidelines.

The Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Decisions to Undergo Low-value Head Computed Tomography Scans.

BACKGROUND: Excessive diagnostic testing and defensive medicine contribute to billions of dollars in avoidable costs in the United States annually. Our objective was to determine the influence of financial incentives, accompanied with information regarding test risk and benefit, on patient preference for diagnostic testing. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients at the University of Michigan emergency department (ED). Each participant was presented with a hypothetical scenario involving an ED visit following minor traumatic brain injury. Participants were given information regarding potential benefit (detecting brain hemorrhage) and risk (developing cancer) of head computed tomography scan, as well as an incentive of $0 or $100 to forego testing. We used 0.1 and 1% for test benefit and risk, and values for risk, benefit, and financial incentive varied across participants. Our primary outcome was patient preference to undergo testing. We also collected demographic and numeracy information. We then used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs), which were adjusted for multiple potential confounders. Our sample size was designed to find at least 300 events (preference for testing) to allow for inclusion of up to 30 covariates in fully adjusted models. We had 85% to 90% power to detect a 10% absolute difference in testing rate across groups, assuming a 95% significance level. RESULTS: We surveyed 913 patients. Increasing test benefit from 0.1% to 1% significantly increased test acceptance (adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 2.1) and increasing test risk from 0.1% to 1% significantly decreased test acceptance (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.93). Finally, a $100 incentive to forego low-value testing significantly reduced test acceptance (AOR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Providing financial incentives to forego testing significantly decreased patient preference for testing, even when accounting for test benefit and risk. This work is preliminary and hypothetical and requires confirmation in larger patient cohorts facing these actual decisions.