Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2018
Helmet use in bicycles and non-motorised wheeled recreational vehicles in children.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ong Jessica Sy, Soundappan Sannappa V, Adams Sarah, Adams Susan
Аннотация
AIM: Injuries involving non-motorised wheeled recreational vehicles (NMWRV) and bicycles are a common cause for hospitalisation in children. Studies show that helmet use whilst bicycle riding can decrease mortality and morbidity due to head injury. However, there remains an important proportion of children who are non-helmet users (NHU). This study aims to investigate helmet use and attitudes and injury patterns in children presenting with trauma after riding bicycles and other NMWRVs.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study was undertaken over 8 months of children aged 0-16 years, who presented with injury secondary to bicycle or NMWRV to the emergency department of two tertiary paediatric centres. Demographics, incident, injury severity and attitudes towards helmet use were compared between helmet users and NHU.
RESULTS: A total of 342 children were included - 41% (n = 139) scooter riders, 39% (n = 133) bicyclists, 18% (n = 61) skateboarders and 2% (n = 9) in-line skaters. Of those interviewed (n = 161), 58% (n = 93) wore a helmet, with children riding bicycles significantly more likely to be helmeted than NMWRV (75 vs. 48%, P = 0.01). NHU were more likely to be admitted to hospital (P = 0.05) and to sustain a major head injury (P = 0.009). The main influence on helmet use was parental rules. The biggest factor influencing non-helmet use was perceived low levels of danger.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite legislation mandating this, helmet use is not universal in cyclists, particularly younger riders. Even fewer NMWRV riders use them. To promote helmet use, a multifaceted approach aimed at altering community norms and individual behaviours and attitudes is required.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study was undertaken over 8 months of children aged 0-16 years, who presented with injury secondary to bicycle or NMWRV to the emergency department of two tertiary paediatric centres. Demographics, incident, injury severity and attitudes towards helmet use were compared between helmet users and NHU.
RESULTS: A total of 342 children were included - 41% (n = 139) scooter riders, 39% (n = 133) bicyclists, 18% (n = 61) skateboarders and 2% (n = 9) in-line skaters. Of those interviewed (n = 161), 58% (n = 93) wore a helmet, with children riding bicycles significantly more likely to be helmeted than NMWRV (75 vs. 48%, P = 0.01). NHU were more likely to be admitted to hospital (P = 0.05) and to sustain a major head injury (P = 0.009). The main influence on helmet use was parental rules. The biggest factor influencing non-helmet use was perceived low levels of danger.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite legislation mandating this, helmet use is not universal in cyclists, particularly younger riders. Even fewer NMWRV riders use them. To promote helmet use, a multifaceted approach aimed at altering community norms and individual behaviours and attitudes is required.