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.

Child restraint systems evaluation using baboons and child-sized dummies. Volume 2 - appendices D and E. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Child restraint systems testing. Appendix. Final report.

Mode of access: Internet.

Study of older child restraint/booster seat fit and NASS injury analysis. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Child restraint workshop series. Volume I - final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Child restraint workshop series. Volume II - ongoing and planned programs. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Evaluation of the performance of child restraint systems. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

I. Safety belt usage among drivers. II. Use of child restraint devices, passenger safety belts and position of passengers in cars. III. Motorcycle helmet usage. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.