Research from JAMA Pediatrics — Effectiveness of Child Safety Seats vs Seat Belts in Reducing Risk for Death in Children in Passenger Vehicle Crashes

Objective.: To determine the risk of significant injury associated with premature graduation of young (2- to 5-year-old) children to seat belts from child restraint systems (CRS). Background.: Advocates recommend use of child safety seats for children younger than age 4 and booster seats for children age 4 and older. Despite these recommendations, many children are prematurely taken out of these child restraints and placed in seat belts. Although data exist to support the use of child restraints over nonrestraint, no real-world data exist to evaluate the risk of significant injury associated with premature use of seat belts. Design/Methods.: Partners for Child Passenger Safety includes a child-focused crash surveillance system based on a representative sample of children ages 0 to 15 years in crashes involving 1990 and newer vehicles reported to State Farm Insurance Companies in 15 states and the District of Columbia. Driver reports of crash circumstances and parent reports of child occupant injury were collected via telephone interview using validated surveys. Results were weighted based on sampling frequencies to represent the entire population. Results.: Between December 1, 1998, and November 30, 1999, 2077 children aged 2 to 5 years were included and were weighted to represent 13 853 children. Among these young children, 98% were restrained, but nearly 40% of these children were restrained in seat belts. Compared with children in CRS, children in seat belts were more likely to suffer a significant injury (relative risk: 3.5; 95% confidence interval: [2.4, 5.2]). Children in seat belts were at particular risk of significant head injuries (relative risk: 4.2; 95% confidence interval: [2.6, 6.7]) when compared with children in CRS. Conclusions.: Premature graduation of young children from CRS to seat belts puts them at greatly increased risk of injury in crashes. A major benefit of CRS is a reduction in head injuries, potentially attributable to a reduction in the amount of head excursion in a crash.

Research from JAMA — Screening for Risk of Persistent Posttraumatic Stress in Injured Children and Their Parents — ContextInjury, a leading health threat to children, is also a common cause of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in childhood. Most injured children with PTSD are not diagnosed or treated.ObjectiveTo develop a stand-alone screening tool for use by clinicians during acute trauma care to identify injured children and their parents who are at risk of significant, persistent posttraumatic stress symptoms.DesignThe Screening Tool for Early Predictors of PTSD (STEPP) was derived from a 50-item risk factor survey administered within 1 month of injury as part of a prospective cohort study of posttraumatic stress in injured children and their parents. Symptoms of PTSD were assessed at least 3 months after injury.SettingUrban, pediatric level I trauma center.ParticipantsA sample of 269 children aged 8 to 17 years admitted for treatment of traffic-related injuries between July 1999 and October 2001, and one parent per child, completed a risk factor survey assessing potential predictors of PTSD outcome. One hundred seventy-one families (63%) completed a follow-up assessment.Main Outcome MeasuresThe Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Children and Adolescents and the PTSD Checklist served as criterion standards for child and parent outcomes, respectively. Positive cases were defined as those meeting criteria for at least subsyndromal PTSD with continuing impairment ("persistent traumatic stress").ResultsThe STEPP contains 4 dichotomous questions asked of the child, 4 asked of one parent, and 4 items obtained easily from the emergency medical record. STEPP sensitivity in predicting posttraumatic stress was 0.88 for children and 0.96 for parents, with negative predictive values of 0.95 for children and 0.99 for parents. The odds ratio for prediction of persistent traumatic stress was 6.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-22.8) in children and 26.6 (95% CI, 3.5-202.1) in parents.ConclusionsThe STEPP represents a new method to guide clinicians in making evidence-based decisions for the allocation of scarce mental health resources for traumatic stress. Its brevity and simple scoring rule suggest that it can be easily administered in the acute care setting.

Objective. The American Academy of Pediatrics highlights the important role of pediatricians in recognizing adverse child responses to tragic events, such as traffic crashes. One challenge in effectively identifying children and their parents with troubling psychological responses to trauma is that little is known about the normal range of acute psychological responses in children and their parents in the immediate aftermath of traumatic events, making identification of adverse child responses difficult. Within the first month after a traumatic event, individuals may display reexperiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal symptoms as well as dissociation (eg, feelings of unreality or emotional numbing). The presence of these responses, collectively known as acute stress disorder (ASD), alerts providers to those who may be at risk for ongoing difficulties. For beginning to develop an evidence base to guide pediatric care providers in addressing acute traumatic responses, the aim of the current investigation was to describe systematically the range and type of symptoms of ASD in children and their parents after pediatric traffic injury. Methods. A prospective cohort study was conducted of traffic-injured children, who were 5 to 17 years of age and admitted to the hospital for treatment of injuries from traffic crashes, and their parents. All children who met eligibility criteria between July 1999 and May 2000 were invited to participate in the study. After consent/assent was obtained, children and their custodial parents (or guardians) were interviewed within 1 month after injury via a structured assessment to determine the circumstances of the crash and the presence of ASD symptoms. Relevant demographic and clinical information (eg, age, race, gender, date of injury) was abstracted from the medical records of subjects. A survey instrument to assess the presence of ASD symptoms was completed by both the child and his or her guardian. All children completed the Child Acute Stress Questionnaire, and all parents completed the Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire. Responses were scored for the presence of dissociation, reexperiencing, avoidance, and/or hyperarousal symptoms as well as broad distress (symptoms present in every category). Results. Symptoms of ASD were commonly observed in the children and parents. Eighty-eight percent of children and 83% of parents reported having at least 1 clinically significant symptom; this affected 90% of the families. Broad distress was observed for a large minority: 28% of children and 23% of parents. No statistically significant association was found between child broad distress and either child age (r = −0.12) or child injury severity score (r = −0.05). χ² analyses revealed no significant association between broad distress and child gender, child race, or mechanism of injury. No statistically significant association was found between parent broad distress and child age (r = −0.06) or child injury severity score (r = 0.09). χ² analyses revealed no significant association between parent broad distress and child gender or parent presence at the crash scene. Associations were found between parent broad distress and race in that fewer white parents reported broad distress. In addition, mechanism of injury was associated with parent broad distress: more parents reported broad distress when their children were involved in pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes, and fewer parents reported broad distress when their children were injured in a bicycle fall. Conclusions. Pediatric care providers can expect to see some ASD symptoms in most children and parents in the immediate aftermath of traffic-related injury. Brief education is appropriate to explain that these symptoms are normal reactions that are likely to resolve. If symptoms persist for >1 month or are particularly distressing in their intensity, then referral for psychological care may be necessary for treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Given the high prevalence of pediatric traffic crashes and the underdiagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, probing for recent crash exposure might be appropriate during routine child health maintenance. The following are recommendations for pediatricians: 1) routinely call the family several days and 1 to 2 weeks after a traffic injury and ask about behavioral symptoms and family function; 2) make use of the ongoing physician-patient relationship to explore symptom presence and intensity and any functional impairment in the injured child; a brief office visit with the child and parents could serve this purpose; 3) be sure to explore the effect that the child’s injury has had on the family; remember that the parent’s experience posttraumatic stress symptoms after pediatric traffic-related injuries and these symptoms may limit the parent’s ability to support the child; 4) provide supportive care and give families the opportunity to discuss the crash and their current feelings; do not force families to talk about the crash; 5) although any child in a traffic crash or his or her parent is at risk for posttraumatic symptomatology, regardless of injury severity, particular attention should be paid to the parents of child pedestrians who are struck by motor vehicles. These parents experience posttraumatic symptoms more commonly than parents of children in other traffic crashes.

Objective. To assess the success of recent outreach activities to promote appropriate child restraint in motor vehicles by examining trends in restraint types used by children under age 9 in 3 large regions of the United States. Methods. Cross-sectional study was conducted of children who were under age 9 and in crashes of insured vehicles in 15 states, with data collected via insurance claims records and a telephone survey. A probability sample of 8730 crashes involving 10 195 children, representing 128 291 crashes involving 149 820 children, was collected between December 1, 1998, and November 30, 2002. Parent report was used to determine restraint type used in the crash. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the secular trend of restraint type use. Results. Overall, for children under age 9, seat belt use decreased significantly from 49% to 36% between 1998 and 2002; for 7- and 8-year-olds, from 97% to 92%; and for 3- to 6-year-olds, from 63% to 34%. Concurrently, gains were achieved in overall child restraint use from 49% to 63%, for 7- and 8-year-olds, from 2% to 5%; and for 3- to 6-year-olds, from 35% to 65%. Child restraint use remains stable for children from birth to 2 years of age (from 97% in 1998 to 98% in 2002). Both the use of child safety seat and belt positioning booster seat increased significantly, whereas shield booster seat use decreased significantly. Conclusion. Although considerable achievements have been realized over a short period of time, substantial inappropriate restraint still remains: 62% of children aged 4 to 8 remain inappropriately restrained in adult seat belts. Parents hear safety messages when they are relevant to their children. As a result, sustained efforts about appropriate restraint must continue to maintain and improve the gains achieved in appropriate child restraint use. The additional benefits realized by recent changes in child restraint laws remain to be evaluated.

Objective To quantify the independent contribution of recently enacted booster seat laws on appropriate restraint use by child passengers in motor vehicles. Design Longitudinal study of children involved in crashes with data collected via insurance claims records and a validated telephone survey. Setting Sixteen states and Washington, DC, from December 1, 1998, through December 31, 2004. Participants Probability sample of 5198 vehicles in crashes involving 6102 children aged 4 to 7 years, representing 78 159 vehicles and 91 752 children. Main Exposures Booster seat law provisions, child age, state, and secular trends. Main Outcome Measure Reported appropriate restraint use for this age group, including forward-facing child safety seats, belt-positioning booster seats, and combination seats. Results Children aged 4 to 7 years in states with booster seat laws were 39% more likely to be reported as appropriately restrained than were children in other states (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.70). Children aged 4 to 5 years were 23% more likely (PR,1.23; 95% CI, 0.80-1.42) and children 6 to 7 years twice as likely (PR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.46-2.99) to be reported as appropriately restrained. For children aged 6 to 7 years, when compared with no law, laws through age 7 years were most effective (PR, 3.71; 95% CI, 2.49-5.42), followed by laws through age 4 or 5 years (PR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89-2.24). Conclusion Given the higher current use of age-appropriate restraints among children 4 to 5 years compared with older children, future upgrades to child restraint laws should include children through at least age 7 years to maximize the number of children properly restrained for their age.