Current child restraint practice in Queensland, new legislation and future challenges

Correct use of child restraints reduces the risk of death and injury. Use of adult seat belts is better than being unrestrained but can result in injury to children who are too small. New Australian legislation extends the requirement for using child-specific restraints until children are 7 years old and thus requires more appropriate levels of protection for these children. As part of a larger study of injury prevention in Queensland, parents of children 0-9 years old were surveyed regarding their restraint practices before the introduction of the new legislation. The restraint status of 18% of the children would not be compliant with the new legislation, with the problem being more prevalent for 5-9 year olds (22%) than 0-4 year olds (16%). A high proportion of older children used an adult seat belt. Very few children aged 0-4 (1.3%) usually travelled in the front seat in contravention of the new requirement, but around 11% of this age group were reported as ever having done so. Usual travel in the front seat was higher among 5-9 year olds (8.5%), with more than half of the 5-9 year olds reported as ever having done so. Given the widespread use of adult seat belts by older children, there is a need to consider improving protection of children in the ‘gap’ between when the requirement for the child to use a booster ceases (effectively age 7) and when the adult belt is likely to actually fit the child (closer to age 9 or 10).

How effective is the new child restraint legislation in Queensland? A mixed methods evaluation

Research Interests: Are parents complying with the legislation? Is this the same for urban, regional and rural parents? Indigenous parents? What difficulties do parents experience in complying? Do parents understand why the legislation was put in place? Have there been negative consequences for other organisations or sectors of the community?

An application of the Health Belief Model to understanding use of child restraint practices

Aims Multi-method study including two parts: Study One: three sets of observations in two regional areas of Queensland Study Two: two sets of parent intercept interviews conducted in Toowoomba, Queensland. The aim of Study Two is to determine parents’ views, opinions and knowledge of child restraint practices and the Queensland legislative amendment.

Evaluation of the 2010 child restraint legislation in Queensland

Occupant injury comprises the largest proportion of child road crash trauma in most highly motorised countries. In Australia, road crashes are the primary cause of death for children aged 1-14 years and are among the top three causes of serious injury to this age group. For this reason considerable research attention has been focused on understanding the contributing factors and the most effective ways of improving children’s safety as car passengers. Australia has been particularly active in this area, with well regarded work being conducted on levels of use of dedicated child restraints, restraint crash performance in laboratory conditions, examination of real world restraint crash performance (case review), and studies of psychosocial factors influencing perceptions about restraints and their use (Brown & Bilston, 2006; Brown, McCaskill, Henderson & Bilston, 2006; Edwards, Anderson & Hutchinson, 2006; Lennon, 2005, 2007). New legislation for the restraint of children as vehicle passengers was enacted in Queensland in March 2010. This new legislation recognises the importance of dedicated restraint use for children up to at least age 7 years and the protective benefits of rear seating position in the event of a crash. As part of improving children’s safety and addressing key priority areas, the Queensland Injury Prevention Council (QIPC) and Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) commissioned the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Queensland (CARRS-Q) to evaluate the impact of the new legislation. Although at the time of commencing the research the legislation had only been in force for 14 months, it was deemed critical to review its effectiveness in guiding parental choices and compliance in order to inform the design and focus of further supporting initiatives and interventions. Specifically, the research sought clear evidence of exactly what impact, if any, the legislation has had on compliance levels and what difficulties (if any) parents/carers experience in relation to interpreting as well as complying with the requirements of the new law. Knowledge about these barriers or difficulties will allow any future changes or improvements to the legislation to address such barriers and thus improve its effectiveness. Moreover, better information about how the legislation has affected parents will provide a basis to plan non-legislative comprehensive multi-strategy interventions such as community, educational or behavioural interventions with parents/carers and other stakeholder groups. In addition, it will allow identification of the most effective aspects of the legislation and those areas in need of extra attention to improve effectiveness/compliance and thus better protect children travelling in cars and improve their health and safety. This report presents the findings from the four components of the research: the literature review; observational study; intercept interviews and focus group with parents; and the interviews with key stakeholders.

A cross sectional observational study of child restraint use in Queensland following changes in legislation

As part of an evaluation of the 2010 legislation for child vehicle occupants in Queensland, road-side observations of private passenger vehicles were used to estimate the proportions of children 0-under 7 years travelling in each of the 5 different restraint types (eg. forward facing child restraint). Data was collected in 4 major population centres: Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Mackay and Townsville. Almost all children were restrained (95.1%, 95% CI 94.3-95.9%), with only 3.3% (95% CI 2.6-4.0%) clearly unrestrained and 44 (1.6%, 95% CI 1.1-2.1%) for whom restraint status could not be determined (‘unknown’). However, around 24.0% (95 CI 21.8-26.2%) of the target-aged children were deemed inappropriately restrained, primarily comprised of 3-6 year olds in seatbelts (18.7% of the 0-6 year olds, 95% CI 16.3-21.1%) or unrestrained (3.7% of the 0-6 year olds, 95% CI 2.5-4.9%) instead of booster seats. In addition, compliance appeared significantly lower for some regional locations where the proportion of children observed as completely unrestrained was relatively high and of concern

The influence of parental health beliefs on child restraint practices in a regional centre in Queensland

Since March 2010 in Queensland, legislation has specified the type of restraint and seating row for child passengers under 7 years according to age. The following study explored regional parents’ child restraint practices and the influence of their health beliefs over these. A brief intercept interview was verbally administered to a convenience sample of parent-drivers (n = 123) in Toowoomba in February 2010, after the announcement of changes to legislation but prior to enforcement. Parents who agreed to be followed-up were then reinterviewed after the enforcement (May-June 2010). The Health Beliefs Model was used to gauge beliefs about susceptibility to crashing, children being injured in a crash, and likely severity of injuries. Self-efficacy and perceptions about barriers to, and benefits of, using age-appropriate restraints with children, were also assessed. Results: There were very high levels of rear seating reported for children (initial interview 91%; follow-up 100%). Dedicated child restraint use was 96.9% at initial interview, though 11% were deemed inappropriate for the child’s age. Self-reported restraint practices for children under 7 were used to categorise parental practices into ‘Appropriate’ (all children in age-appropriate restraint and rear seat) or ‘Inappropriate’ (≥1 child inappropriately restrained). 94% of parents were aware of the legislation, but only around one third gave accurate descriptions of the requirements. However, 89% of parents were deemed to have ‘Appropriate’ restraint practices. Parents with ‘Inappropriate’ practices were significantly more likely than those with ‘Appropriate’ practices to disagree that child restraints provide better protection for children in a crash than adult seatbelts. For self-efficacy, parents with ‘Appropriate’ practices were more likely than those with ‘Inappropriate’ practices to report being ‘completely confident’ about installing child restraints. The results suggest that efforts to increase the level of appropriate restraint should attempt to better inform them about the superior protection offered by child restraints compared with seat belts for children.

Designing and evaluating a persuasive child restraint television commercial

Objective Relatively high rates of child restraint inappropriate use, misuse and faults in the installation of restraints have suggested a crucial need for public education messages to raise parental awareness of the need to use restraints correctly. This project involved the devising and pilot testing of message concepts, filming of a television advertisement (the TVC), and the evaluation of the TVC. This paper focuses specifically upon the evaluation of the TVC. The development and evaluation of the TVC were guided by an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour which comprised the standard constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control as well as the additional constructs of group norm and descriptive norm. The study also explored the extent to which parents with low and high intentions to self-check restraint/s differed on salient beliefs regarding the behaviour. Methods An online survey of parents (N = 384) was conducted where parents were randomly assigned to either an Intervention group (n = 161), and therefore viewed the advertisement within the survey, or the Control group (n = 223) and therefore did not view the advertisement. Results Following a one-off exposure to the TVC, the results indicated that, although not a significant difference, parents in the Intervention group reported stronger intentions (M = 4.43, SD = .74) to self-check restraints than parents in the Control group (M = 4.18, SD = .86). Also, parents in the Intervention group (M = 4.59, SD = .47) reported significantly higher levels of perceived behavioural control than parents in the Control group (M = 4.40, SD = .73). The regression results revealed that, for parents in the Intervention group, attitude and group norm were significant predictors of parental intentions to self-check their child restraint. Finally, the exploratory analyses of parental beliefs suggested that those parents with low intentions to self-check child restraints were significantly more likely than high intenders to agree that they did not have enough time to check restraints or that having a child in a restraint is more important than checking the installation of the restraint. Conclusion Overall, the findings provide some support for the persuasiveness of the child restraint TVC and provide insight into the factors influencing reported parental intentions as well as salient beliefs underpinning self-checking of restraints. Interventions that attempt to increase parental perceptions of the importance of self-checking restraints regularly and brevity of the time involved in doing so may be effective.

The role of comfort in child restraint use practices

Suboptimal restraint use, particularly the incorrect use of restraints, is a significant and widespread problem among child vehicle occupants, and increases the risk of injury. Previous research has identified comfort as a potential factor influencing suboptimal restraint use. Both the real comfort experienced by the child and the parent’s perception of the child’s comfort are reported to influence the optimal use of restraints. Problems with real comfort may lead the child to misuse the restraint in their attempt to achieve better comfort whilst parent-perceived discomfort has been reported as a driver for premature graduation and inappropriate restraint choice. However, this work has largely been qualitative. There has been no research that objectively studies either the association between real and parent-perceived comfort, or any association between comfort and suboptimal restraint use. One barrier to such studies is the absence of validated tools for quantifying real comfort in children. We aimed to develop methods to examine both real and parent-perceived comfort and examine their effects on suboptimal restraint use. We conducted online parent surveys (n=470) to explore what drives parental perceptions of their child’s comfort in restraint systems (study 1) and used data from field observation studies (n=497) to examine parent-perceived comfort and its relationship with observed restraint use (study 2). We developed methods to measure comfort in children in a laboratory setting (n=14) using video analysis to estimate a Discomfort Avoidance Behaviour (DAB) score, pressure mapping and adapted survey tools to differentiate between comfortable and induced discomfort conditions (study 3). The DAB rate was then used to compare an integrated booster with an add-on booster (study 4) Preliminary analysis of our recent online survey of Australian parents (study 1) indicates that 23% of parents report comfort as a consideration when making a decision to change restraints. Logistic regression modelling of data collected during the field observation study (study 2) revealed that parent-perceived discomfort was not significantly associated with premature graduation. Contrary to expectation, children of parents who reported that their child was comfortable were almost twice as likely to have been incorrectly restrained (p<0.01, 95% CI 1.24 - 2.77).In the laboratory study (study 3) we found our adapted survey tools did not provide a reliable measurement of real comfort among children. However our DAB score was able to differentiate between comfortable and induced discomfort conditions and correlated well with pressure mapping. Preliminary results from the laboratory comparison study (study 4) indicate a positive correlation between DAB rate and use errors. In experiments conducted to date, we have seen a significantly higher DAB rate in the integrated booster compared to the add-on booster (p < 0.01). However, this needs to be confirmed in a naturalistic setting and in further experiments that take length of time under observation into account. Our results suggest that while some parents report concern about their child’s comfort, parent-reported comfort levels were not associated with restraint choice. If comfort is important for optimal restraint use, it is likely to be the real comfort of the child rather than that reported by the parent. The method we have developed for studying real comfort can be used in naturalistic studies involving child occupants to further understand this relationship. This work will be of interest to vehicle and child restraint manufacturers interested in improving restraint design for young occupants as well as researchers and other stakeholders interested in reducing the incidence of restraint misuse among children.

Understanding the impact of legislative changes on child car seating and restraint practices in regional Queensland

Road crashes contribute to a significant amount of child mortality and morbidity in Australia. In fact, passenger injuries contribute to the majority of child crash road trauma. A number of factors contribute to child injury and death in motor vehicles, including inappropriate seating position, inappropriate choice of restraint, and incorrect installation and use of child restraints. Prior to March 2010, child restraint legislation in Queensland only required children twelve months and younger to be seated in a properly adjusted and fastened child restraint. This legislation left older infants and young children potentially suboptimally protected. From March 2010, new legislation specified seating position and type of child restraint required, depending on the age of the child. This research was underpinned by the Health Belief Model (HBM), which explores health related behaviour, behaviour change, environmental factors influencing behaviour change (including legislative changes) and is flexible enough to be used in relation to parents' health practices for their children, rather than parent health directly. This thesis investigates the extent to which the changes to child restraint legislation have led parents in regional areas of Queensland to use appropriate restraint practices for their children and determines the extent to which the constructs of the HBM, parental perceptions, barriers and environmental factors contribute to the appropriateness of child seating and restraint use. Study One included three sets of observations taken in two regional cities of Queensland prior to the legislative amendment, during an educative period of six months, and after the enactment of the legislation. Each child's seating position and restraint type were recorded. Results showed that the proportion of children observed occupying the front seat decreased by 15.6 per cent with the announcement the legislation. There was no decrease in front seat use at the enactment of the legislation. The proportion of children observed using dedicated child restraints increased by 8.8 per cent with the announcement of the legislation when there was one child in the vehicle. Further, there was a 10.1 per cent increase in the proportion of children observed using a seat belt that fit with the announcement when there was one child in the vehicle and with the enactment of the legislation regardless of the number of children in the vehicle (21.8 per cent for one child, 39.7 per cent for two children and 40.2 per cent for three or more children). Study Two comprised initial intercept interviews, later followed up by telephone, with parents with children aged eight years and younger at the announcement and telephone interviews at the enactment of the legislation in one regional city in Queensland. Parents reported their child restraint practices, and opinions, knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the new legislation. Parent responses were analysed in terms of the constructs in the HBM. When asked which seating position their child 'usually' used, parents reported child front seat use was nil (0.0 per cent) and did not change with the enactment of the legislative amendment. However, when parents were asked whether they allowed children to use the front seat at some point within the six months prior to the interview, reported child front seat use was 7 (5.4 per cent) children at T2 and 10 (9.6 per cent) at T3. Reported use of age-appropriate child restraints did not increase with the enactment of the legislation (p = 0.77, ns). Parents reported restraint practices were classed as either appropriate or inappropriate. Parents who reported appropriate restraint practices were those whose children were sitting in optimal restraints and seating positions for their age according to the requirements of the legislation. Parents who reported inappropriate restraint practices were those who had one or more children who were suboptimally restrained or seated for their age according to the requirements of the legislation. Neither parents' perceptions about their susceptibility of being in a crash nor the likelihood of severity of child injury if involved in a crash yielded significant differences in the appropriateness of reported parent restraint practices over time with the enactment of the legislation. A trend in the data suggested parents perceived a benefit to using appropriate restraint practices was to avoid fines and demerit points. Over 75 per cent of parents who agreed that child restraints provide better protection for children than an adult seat belt reported appropriately seating and restraining their children (2 (1) = 8.093, p<.05). The self-efficacy measure regarding parents' confidence in installing a child restraint showed a significant association with appropriate parental restraint practices (2 (1) = 7.036, p<.05). Results suggested that some parents may have misinterpreted the announcement of the legislative amendment as the announcement of the enforcement of the legislation instead. Some parents who correctly reported details of the legislation did not report appropriate child restraint practices. This finding shows that parents' knowledge of the legislative amendment does not necessarily have an impact on their behaviour to appropriately seat and restrain children. The results of these studies have important implications for road safety and the prevention of road-related injury and death to children in Queensland. Firstly, parents reported feeling unsure of how to install restraints, which suggests that there may be children travelling in restraints that have not been installed correctly, putting them at risk. Interventions to alert and encourage parents to seek advice when unsure about the correct installation of child restraints could be considered. Secondly, some parents in this study although they were using the most appropriate restraint for their children, reported using a type that was not the most appropriate restraint for the child's age according to the legislation. This suggests that intervention may be effective in helping parents make a more accurate choice of the most appropriate type of restraint to use with children, especially as the child ages and child restraint requirements change. Further research could be conducted to ascertain the most effective methods of informing and motivating parents to use the most appropriate restraints and seating positions for their children, as these results show a concerning disparity between reported restraint practices and those that were observed.

Evaluation of the Type I child car restraints fitting service in WA

Child passenger injury remains a major road safety issue despite advances in biomechanical understanding and child restraint design. In Australia, one intervention with parents to encourage universal and consistent use of the most appropriate restraint as well as draw their attention to critical aspects of installation is the RoadWise Type 1 Child Car Restraints Fitting Service, WA. A mixed methods evaluation of this service was conducted in early 2010. Evaluation results suggest that it has been effective in ensuring good quality training of child restraint fitters. In addition, stakeholder and user satisfaction with the Service is high, with participants agreeing that the Service is valuable to the community, and fitters regarding the training course, materials and post-training support as effective. However, a continuing issue for interventions of this type is whether the parents who need them perceive this need. Evidence from the evaluation suggests that only about 25% of parents who could benefit from the Service actually use it. This may be partly due to parental perceptions that such services are not necessary or relevant to them, or to overconfidence about the ease of installing restraints correctly. Thus there is scope for improving awareness of the Service amongst groups most likely to benefit from it (e.g. new parents) and for alerting parents to the importance of correct installation and getting their self-installed restraints checked. Efforts to inform and influence parents should begin when their children are very young, preferably at or prior to birth and/or before the parent installs the first restraint.

Measuring in-vehicle child comfort to study barriers to appropriate and correct use of restraints

Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death and injury among children aged between 4-14 years1,2 and premature graduation to adult seat belts2,3 and restraint misuse4 are common and known risk factors. Children are believed to prematurely graduate to adult belts and misuse the seat belt in booster seats if uncomfortable2,5,6. Although research has concentrated on educating parents and designing better restraints to reduce errors in use, comfort of the child in the restraint has not been studied. Currently there is no existing method for studying comfort in children in restraint systems, although self-report survey tools and pressure distribution mapping is commonly used to measure comfort among adult in vehicle seats. This poster presents preliminary results from work aimed at developing an appropriate method to measure comfort of children in vehicle restraint systems. The specific aims are to: 1. Examine the potential of using modified adult self-report/survey and pressure distribution mapping in children 2. Develop a video based, objective measure of comfort in children.

Is comfort important for optimal use of child restraints?

Suboptimal restraint use, particularly the incorrect use of restraints, is a significant and widespread problem among child vehicle occupants, and increases the risk of injury. Previous research has identified comfort as a potential factor influencing suboptimal restraint use. Both the real comfort experienced by the child and the parent’s perception of the child’s comfort are reported to influence the optimal use of restraints. Problems with real comfort may lead the child to misuse the restraint in their attempt to achieve better comfort whilst parent-perceived discomfort has been reported as a driver for premature graduation and inappropriate restraint choice. However, this work has largely been qualitative. There has been no research that objectively studies either the association between real and parental perceived comfort, or any association between comfort and suboptimal restraint use. One barrier to such studies is the absence of validated tools for quantifying real comfort in children. We aimed to develop methods to examine both real and parent-perceived comfort and examine their effects on suboptimal restraint use. We conducted online parent surveys (n=470) to explore what drives parental perceptions of their child’s comfort in restraint systems (study 1) and used data from field observation studies (n=497) to examine parent-perceived comfort and its relationship with observed restraint use (study 2). We developed methods to measure comfort in children in a laboratory setting (n=14) using video analysis to estimate a Discomfort Avoidance Behaviour (DAB) score, pressure mapping and adapted survey tools to differentiate between comfortable and induced discomfort conditions (study 3). Preliminary analysis of our recent online survey of Australian parents (study 1) indicates that 23% of parents report comfort as a consideration when making a decision to change restraints. Logistic regression modelling of data collected during the field observation study (study 2) revealed that parent-perceived discomfort was not significantly associated with premature graduation. Contrary to expectation, children of parents who reported that their child was comfortable were almost twice as likely to have been incorrectly restrained (p<0.01, 95% CI 1.24 - 2.77). In the laboratory study (study 3) we found our adapted survey tools did not provide a reliable measurement of real comfort among children. However our DAB score was able to differentiate between comfortable and induced discomfort conditions and correlated well with pressure mapping. Our results suggest that while some parents report concern about their child’s comfort, parent-reported comfort levels were not associated with restraint choice. If comfort is important for optimal restraint use, it is likely to be the real comfort of the child rather than that reported by the parent. The method we have developed for studying real comfort can be used in naturalistic studies involving child occupants to further understand this relationship. This work will be of interest to vehicle and child restraint manufacturers interested in improving restraint design for young occupants as well as researchers and other stakeholders interested in reducing the incidence of restraint misuse among children.

Effects of changes to child car restraint legislation in Australia on seating position and restraint use

Road trauma is a leading cause of child injury worldwide and in highly motorised countries, injury as a passenger represents a major proportion of all child road deaths and hospitalisations. Australia is no exception, particularly since motorised transport to school is at high levels in most Australian states. Recently the legislation governing the type of car restraints required for children aged under 7 years has changed in most Australian states aligning requirements better with accepted best practice. However, it is unclear what effect these changes have had on children’s seating positions or the types of restraints used. A mixed methods evaluation of the impact of the new legislation on compliance was conducted at three times: baseline (Time 1); after announcement that changes were going to be implemented but before enforcement began (Time 2); and after enforcement commenced (Time 3). Measures of compliance were obtained using two methods: road-side observations of vehicles with child passengers; and parental self-report (intercept interviews conducted at Time 2 and Time 3 only). Results from the observations suggested an overall positive effect. Proportions of children occupying front seats decreased overall and use of dedicated child seas increased to almost 40% of the observed children by Time 3. However, almost a quarter of the children observed were still occupying the front seat. These results were very different from those of the interview study where almost no children were reported as usually travelling in the front seat, and the reported use of dedicated restraints with children was almost 90%, more than twice that in the observations.

Has increasing the age for child passengers to wear child restraints improved the extent to which they are used? Results from an Australian focus group and survey study.

Acknowledgement that many children in Australia travel in restraints that do not offer them the best protection has led to recent changes in legislation such that the type of restraint for children under 7 years is now specified. This paper reports the results of two studies (observational; focus group/ survey) carried out in the state of Queensland to evaluate the effectiveness of these changes to the legislation. Observations suggested that almost all of the children estimated as aged 0-12 years were restrained (95%). Analysis of the type of restraint used for target-aged children (0-6 year olds) suggests that the proportion using an age-appropriate restraint has increased by an estimated 7% since enactment of the legislation. However, around 1 in 4 children estimated as aged under 7 years were using restraints too large for good fit. Results from the survey and focus group suggested parents were supportive of the changes in legislation. Non-Indigenous parents agreed that the changes had been necessary, were effective at getting children into the right restraints, were easy to understand as well as making it clear what restraint to use with children. Moreover, they did not see the legislation as too complicated or too hard to comply with. Indigenous parents who participated in a focus group also regarded the legislation as improving children’s safety. However, they identified the cost of restraints as an important barrier to compliance. In summary, the legislation appears to have had a positive effect on compliance levels and on raising parental awareness of the need to restrain children child-specific restraints for longer. However, it would seem that an important minority of parents transition their children into larger restraints too early for optimal protection. Intervention efforts should aim to better inform these parents about appropriate ages for transition, especially from forward facing childseats. This could potentially be through use of other important transitions that occur at the same age, such as starting school. The small proportion of parents who do not restrain their children at all are also an important community sector to target. Finally, obtaining restraints presents a significant barrier to compliance for parents on limited incomes and interventions are needed to address this.

Name-calling by a child diagnosed with asperger’s syndrome

Rendle-Short, Wilkinson, and Danby show how social interaction is directly relevant to maintaining friendships, mental health and well-being, and supportive peer relations. Using conversation analysis, the chapter focuses on conversational participants’ pursuit of affiliation and intimacy from a language as action perspective. It focuses on the use of derogatory naming practices by a 10-year-old girl diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. The analysis shows how derogatory address terms, part of a wider pattern of behaviour evident in this child’s interaction, result in behaviour that might be thought of as impolite or lacking in restraint. It also illustrates how a single case study can draw attention to the context-specific nature of interaction when working with children with Asperger’s Syndrome. The chapter contributes to our understanding of the difficulty in pinpointing, with precision and with clear evidence, what counts as a ‘social interaction difficulty’ due to the context specific nature of interaction.