The road environment: bicycle helmet legislation
| Author, date, and country | Injury target group and setting | Aims and content of intervention | Study type and sample size | Outcome measures | Key results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C = control; I = intervention. | |||||
| Abularrage (1997),18 USA | Children 1–14 years Multiracial community | I (1) Legislation— helmet use for children 1–14 years (2) Campaign in month before legislation. Discount coupons | Controlled trial without randomisation I=14 schools C=12 schools | Observed helmet use | Observed helmet use: I: 4.7% to 13.9%, C: 5.6% to 4.2% Increased use in girls, 5–9 age group Education and legislation effective Legislation alone no effect on C Effective for some groups Good/reasonable evidence |
| Ni et al (1997),19 USA | Under 16 years Community-wide | Statewide legislation in Oregon (July 1994)—all children under 16 years to wear cycle helmets when riding on public property $25 fine for non-compliance. Statewide promotional campaigns | 4: (i) Statewide observation before: 1610. After: 1703 (ii) Observations: 33 schools (iii) Survey in 16 schools (iv) Telephone survey | (A) Observed helmet use in (i) and (ii) (B) Reported helmet use and knowledge in (iii) and (iv) | (A) Statewide (i) Observed use. 25% to 49% Schools (ii) Observed helmet use 20% to 56% Schools (iii) Reported use 15% to 39% Helmet ownership 51% to 76% Telephone survey (iv) Reported helmet use 37% to 66% Effective Good/reasonable evidence |