Article Text
Abstract
Objectives Although cycling is a healthy, ecological and practical way of transportation, it is not without risk. The effect of bicycle helmets to prevent head injuries on crashing has been extensively investigated. Nonetheless, the overall use of helmets by adolescents remains low. While various interventions to increase helmet use have been adopted, adolescents’ perspectives on these interventions have not been extensively explored. In our study, we aim to understand the facilitators and barriers to bicycle helmet use by adolescents and their perspectives on injury prevention campaigns.
Methods A qualitative methodology was selected. A convenience sample of three schools in Belgium was selected for participation. 12 focus groups were conducted with a total of 84 adolescents aged 12–17 years in the second, third or fourth year of secondary school.
Results Four key themes regarding adolescents’ views on safe cycling practices emerged from the analysis: external motivation, internal motivation, factors specific to the helmet and the cycling environment. The main barriers to bicycle helmet use identified by adolescents were peer pressure, appearance and discomfort. The perceived risks of cycling without a helmet among adolescents were low. Mandatory bicycle helmet laws and non-legislative programmes were considered to be an effective strategy by the study participants. Parental strategies, including strict parental rules and parental helmet use, further contributed to wear a bicycle helmet.
Conclusion The results of this qualitative study add to the literature by expanding the understanding of motivation for bicycle helmet use and should be considered when designing interventions to promote bicycle helmet use.
- Adolescent
- Qualitative research
- Helmet
- Bicycle
- Behavior Change
Data availability statement
No data are available. Not applicable.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available. Not applicable.
Footnotes
Contributors LV conceived and conducted the study and drafted the manuscript, FV conducted the study, SvD, DDC and JT conceived the study, gave important intellectual contribution and critically revised the final manuscript. JT is the corresponding author. JT is the guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.