Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2022
Effect of different helmet types in head injuries: a case-control study in northern Ghana.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baffour Appiah Anthony, Akweongo Patricia, Sackey Samuel Oko, Morna Martin Tangnaa, Kenu Ernest, Buunaaim Alexis Dun Bo-Ib, Debrah Samual Akobour Yaw, Ojo Thomas K, Donkor Peter, Mock Charles N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Motorcycle helmet use is low in Ghana and many helmets are non-standard. There are limited data on the effectiveness of the different helmet types in use in the real-world circumstances of low-income and middle-income countries. This study assessed the effect of different helmet types on risk of head injury among motorcycle crash victims in northern Ghana.
METHODS: A prospective unmatched case-control study was conducted at the Tamale Teaching Hospital (TTH). All persons who had injuries from a motorcycle crash within 2 weeks of presentation to TTH were consecutively sampled. A total of 349 cases, persons who sustained minor to severe head injury, and 363 controls, persons without head injury, were enrolled. A semistructured questionnaire was used to interview patients and review their medical records. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds for head injury.
RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, the odds of head injuries were 93% less in motorcyclists with full-face helmet (FFH) (adjusted OR, AOR 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.15) or open-face helmet (OFH) (AOR 0.07, 95% CI 0.04, 0.13), compared with unhelmeted motorcyclists. Half-coverage helmets (HCH) were less effective (AOR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.92). With exception of HCH, the AORs of head injury for the different types of helmets were lower in riders (FFH=0.06, OFH=0.05 and HCH=0.47) than in pillion riders (FFH=0.11, OFH=0.12 and HCH=0.35).
CONCLUSION: Even in this environment where there is a high proportion of non-standard helmets, the available helmets provided significant protection against head injury, but with considerably less protection provided by HCHs.
METHODS: A prospective unmatched case-control study was conducted at the Tamale Teaching Hospital (TTH). All persons who had injuries from a motorcycle crash within 2 weeks of presentation to TTH were consecutively sampled. A total of 349 cases, persons who sustained minor to severe head injury, and 363 controls, persons without head injury, were enrolled. A semistructured questionnaire was used to interview patients and review their medical records. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds for head injury.
RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, the odds of head injuries were 93% less in motorcyclists with full-face helmet (FFH) (adjusted OR, AOR 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.15) or open-face helmet (OFH) (AOR 0.07, 95% CI 0.04, 0.13), compared with unhelmeted motorcyclists. Half-coverage helmets (HCH) were less effective (AOR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.92). With exception of HCH, the AORs of head injury for the different types of helmets were lower in riders (FFH=0.06, OFH=0.05 and HCH=0.47) than in pillion riders (FFH=0.11, OFH=0.12 and HCH=0.35).
CONCLUSION: Even in this environment where there is a high proportion of non-standard helmets, the available helmets provided significant protection against head injury, but with considerably less protection provided by HCHs.