Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Premature graduation to an adult seatbelt is common and detrimental to optimal crash protection. While there is an existing tool (the 5-step test) to support a parent’s decision to graduate their child, its effectiveness is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-step test.
Method A randomised controlled design was used. Participants were parents of children aged 7–12 years. After exposure to information about the 5-step test or control material, participants assessed belt fit in three seating conditions and ‘thought aloud’ while making their assessment. Seating conditions provided a good, poor and partially good seatbelt fit based on the child’s anthropometry. Participants were also assessed on their knowledge of good seatbelt fit criteria.
Results Participants exposed to the 5-step test (n=18) had significantly improved their knowledge of the criteria required to achieve good seatbelt with, on average, 1.0 higher score in the 6-point assessment (95% CI 0.23 to 1.7, p=0.012) than those in the control group. There was also a greater percentage of participants in this group (44.4% intervention vs 27.8% control) who made accurate decisions about seatbelt fit, but this difference did not reach significance (OR 2.08, 95% CI 0.52 to 8.34).
Conclusion The results demonstrate that the 5-step test is effective in improving knowledge but are inconclusive about its effectiveness in promoting accurate decision-making. However, the proportion of participants making accurate decisions in the intervention group remained low. This suggests that parents may require greater assistance than what is currently provided.
- Booster Seat
- Education
- Restraints
- Motor vehicle � Occupant
- Adolescent
- Child
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
Contributors SP conceptualised and designed the trial, provided intellectual input into the analysis, coordinated data collection, collected data, conducted initial analysis, carried out final analysis, drafted initial manuscripts, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. WD, CH and BA, designed data collection tools, coordinated data collection, collected data, reviewed and revised the manuscript. LK and LEB conceptualised and developed the intervention, conceptualised and designed the trial, provided intellectual input into the analysis, reviewed and revised the manuscript. TW conceptualised and developed the intervention, conceptualised and designed the trial, provided intellectual input into the data collection tools and analysis, reviewed and revised the manuscript. JB conceptualised the intervention, developed the intervention, conceptualised and designed the trial, supervised design of data collection tools and data collection, carried out final analyses, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. JB acted as the guarantor. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding All phases of this study were supported by Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Program grant (ARC DP 210103790). LEB is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Investigator grant.
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.