Non-legislative interventions for the promotion of cycle helmet wearing by children.

BACKGROUND Helmets reduce bicycle-related head injuries, particularly in single vehicle crashes and those where the head strikes the ground. We aimed to identify non-legislative interventions for promoting helmet use among children, so future interventions can be designed on a firm evidence base. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of non-legislative interventions in increasing helmet use among children; to identify possible reasons for differences in effectiveness of interventions; to evaluate effectiveness with respect to social group; to identify adverse consequences of interventions. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases: Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO (Ovid); PsycEXTRA (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED); Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI); Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S); and PubMed from inception to April 2009; TRANSPORT to 2007; and manually searched other sources of data. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs and CBAs. Studies included participants aged 0 to 18 years, described interventions promoting helmet use not requiring enactment of legislation and reported observed helmet wearing, self reported helmet ownership or self reported helmet wearing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two independent review authors selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) (with 95% confidence interval (CI)). We explored heterogeneity with subgroup analyses. MAIN RESULTS We included 29 studies in the review, 21 of which were included in at least one meta-analysis. Non-legislative interventions increased observed helmet wearing (11 studies: OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.34). The effect was most marked amongst community-based interventions (four studies: OR 4.30, 95% 2.24 to 8.25) and those providing free helmets (two studies: OR 4.35, 95% CI 2.13 to 8.89). Significant effects were also found amongst school-based interventions (eight studies: OR 1.73, CI 95% 1.03 to 2.91), with a smaller effect found for interventions providing education only (three studies: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.88). No significant effect was found for providing subsidised helmets (seven studies: OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.17). Interventions provided to younger children (aged under 12) may be more effective (five studies: OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.37) than those provided to children of all ages (five studies: OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.42).Interventions were only effective in increasing self reported helmet ownership where they provided free helmets (three studies: OR 11.63, 95% CI 2.14 to 63.16).Interventions were effective in increasing self reported helmet wearing (nine studies: OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.56 to 6.87), including those undertaken in schools (six studies: OR 4.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 16.74), providing free helmets (three studies: OR 7.27, 95% CI 1.28 to 41.44), providing education only (seven studies: OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.63) and in healthcare settings (two studies: OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.61). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Non-legislative interventions appear to be effective in increasing observed helmet use, particularly community-based interventions and those providing free helmets. Those set in schools appear to be effective but possibly less so than community-based interventions. Interventions providing education only are less effective than those providing free helmets. There is insufficient evidence to recommend providing subsidised helmets at present. Interventions may be more effective if provided to younger rather than older children. There is evidence that interventions offered in healthcare settings can increase self reported helmet wearing.Further high-quality studies are needed to explore whether non-legislative interventions increase helmet wearing, and particularly the effect of providing subsided as opposed to free helmets, and of providing interventions in healthcare settings as opposed to in schools or communities. Alternative interventions (e.g. those including peer educators, those aimed at developing safety skills including skills in decision making and resisting peer pressure or those aimed at improving self esteem or self efficacy) need developing and testing, particularly for 11 to 18 year olds. The effect of interventions in countries with existing cycle helmet legislation and in low and middle-income countries also requires investigation.

[1]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[2]  T. Koepsell,et al.  Bicycle helmet use by children. Evaluation of a community-wide helmet campaign. , 1989, JAMA.

[3]  Effects of a School‐based Education Programme on Safety Helmet Usage by 11‐ to 13‐year‐old Cyclists , 1990 .

[4]  J. Down,et al.  Helmet promotion in the emergency room following a bicycle injury: a randomized trial. , 1991, Pediatrics.

[5]  Morris Ba,et al.  Promotion of bicycle helmet use among schoolchildren: a randomized clinical trial. , 1991 .

[6]  W James,et al.  Physicians promoting bicycle helmets for children: a randomized trial. , 1991, American journal of public health.

[7]  A. Dannenberg,et al.  Bicycle helmet use among Maryland children: effect of legislation and education. , 1992, Pediatrics.

[8]  R A Pendergrast,et al.  Correlates of children's bicycle helmet use and short-term failure of school-level interventions. , 1992, Pediatrics.

[9]  M. Marvel,et al.  A school-based intervention to increase the use of bicycle helmets. , 1992, Family medicine.

[10]  P C Parkin,et al.  Evaluation of a promotional strategy to increase bicycle helmet use by children. , 1993, Pediatrics.

[11]  R J McDermott,et al.  The MORE HEALTH bicycle safety project. , 1995, The Journal of school health.

[12]  P C Parkin,et al.  Evaluation of a subsidy program to increase bicycle helmet use by children of low-income families. , 1995, Pediatrics.

[13]  F. Rivara,et al.  Evaluation of the Think First head and spinal cord injury prevention program. , 1995, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[14]  B Brown,et al.  The effects of a 4-year program promoting bicycle helmet use among children in Quebec. , 1996, American journal of public health.

[15]  G. Smith,et al.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test , 1997, BMJ.

[16]  I. Roberts,et al.  Cause specific social class mortality differentials for child injury and poisoning in England and Wales. , 1997, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[17]  D. Watts,et al.  Effect of a bicycle safety program and free bicycle helmet distribution on the use of bicycle helmets by elementary school children. , 1997, Journal of emergency nursing: JEN : official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association.

[18]  T. Koepsell,et al.  Does sharing the cost of a bicycle helmet help promote helmet use? , 1997, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[19]  David R. Jones,et al.  Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. , 1998, Health technology assessment.

[20]  P. Parkin,et al.  Evaluation of a bicycle skills training program for young children: a randomized controlled trial , 1998, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[21]  S G Hendrickson,et al.  Impact of a theory based intervention to increase bicycle helmet use in low income children , 1998, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[22]  F P Rivara,et al.  Bicycle helmet promotion among low income preschool children , 1998, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[23]  George Davey Smith,et al.  meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies , 1998 .

[24]  S. Sharp,et al.  Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. , 1999 .

[25]  J. Sterne,et al.  Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[26]  A. Cook,et al.  Trends in serious head injuries among cyclists in England: analysis of routinely collected data , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  A. J. Lee,et al.  A hospital led promotion campaign aimed to increase bicycle helmet wearing among children aged 11–15 living in West Berkshire 1992–98 , 2000, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[28]  D. Rutter,et al.  Persuading school-age cyclists to use safety helmets: Effectiveness of an intervention based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. , 2001, British journal of health psychology.

[29]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Systematic Reviews in Health Care , 2001 .

[30]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. , 2001, BMJ.

[31]  Timo Juhani Lajunen,et al.  Why teenagers owning a bicycle helmet do not use their helmets , 2001 .

[32]  D. Thompson,et al.  Cochrane Review : Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists , 2017 .

[33]  M. Copass,et al.  Behavior change counseling in the emergency department to reduce injury risk: a randomized, controlled trial. , 2002, Pediatrics.

[34]  Denise Kendrick,et al.  Cross sectional survey of socioeconomic variations in severity and mechanism of childhood injuries in Trent 1992-7 , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  R Azeredo,et al.  Design and implementation of injury prevention curricula for elementary schools: lessons learned , 2003, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[36]  D. Bishai,et al.  Contracting with children and helmet distribution in the emergency department to improve bicycle helmet use. , 2003, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[37]  Diane J Catellier,et al.  School-level intraclass correlation for physical activity in adolescent girls. , 2004, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[38]  D. Cross,et al.  Evaluation of a school-based peer leader bicycle helmet intervention , 2004, Injury control and safety promotion.

[39]  Sandra Eldridge,et al.  Patterns of intra-cluster correlation from primary care research to inform study design and analysis. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[40]  M. Machala,et al.  Evaluation of a Pilot Program in Rural Schools to Increase Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Safety , 2000, Journal of Community Health.

[41]  D. Kendrick,et al.  Cycle helmet ownership and use; a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary school children in deprived areas , 2004, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[42]  Valerie Romero-Leggott,et al.  Does office-based counseling of adolescents and young adults improve self-reported safety habits? A randomized controlled effectiveness trial. , 2005, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[43]  A Randomized Controlled Trial of Sport Helmet Interventions in a Pediatric Emergency Department , 2005, Pediatric emergency care.

[44]  赵红彬 Placebo , 2007 .

[45]  Alison Macpherson,et al.  Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head injuries. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[46]  V. Preedy,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trial , 2010 .

[47]  R Cuerden,et al.  The potential for cycle helmets to prevent injury - A review of the evidence , 2011 .